DOCSLIB.ORG

Who May Fight Just Wars?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who May Fight Just Wars? Who May Fight Just Wars? Right Authority for States and Non-States A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University by Oren J. Litwin Master of Arts George Mason University, 2010 Bachelor of Arts Yeshiva University, 2006 Director: Char R. Miller, Professor Department of Political Science Fall Semester 2014 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright © 2014 by Oren J. Litwin. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my wife Diane, to my parents, and to the memory of Dr. Frances Harbour, who encouraged me to pursue this topic and gave critical support and advice up to the end. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would have been far inferior (if it would have existed at all) without the input of many different people over several years. Dr. Frances Harbour was my original dissertation committee chair; it was in her Ethics in IR class that the nucleus of this argument first took shape, and she strongly encouraged me to turn it into my dissertation and was a great support during the early "flailing around" phase of theory development. Dr. Char Miller agreed to step in as chair when Dr. Harbour passed away, and he and my other committee members have supported me despite imperfect circumstances and the difficulties of working remotely. Dr. Eric McGlinchey and Dr. Jo-Marie Burt in particular guided my engagement with the Comparative Politics subfield, the main concepts of which mark this dissertation in fundamental ways; I owe them both a great intellectual debt. Dr. David Wilsford was my academic advisor during much of my time at GMU and taught me much. Peg Koback was a lifesaver during my rocky dissertation-writing process, helping me navigate the administrative shoals and come out safely. My father, Todd Litwin, played a key role in the development of this dissertation; most of the concepts found within were hammered out during many, many late-night discussions we shared while doing the dishes. I am grateful for his wisdom and for his continual focus on drilling down to the fundamentals. Dr. Diana Dunham-Scott gave me valuable feedback during the early days of theory development, and suggested the Moro insurgency as a case, for which I am very grateful. And finally, acharon acharon chaviv, thank you to Diane, my incredible wife. She believed in me throughout the bleakest points of writing this dissertation, and carried me through to its end. Je t'aime, mon amour. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... viii! Abstract............................................................................................................................... x! Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1! What is Just War Theory?............................................................................................... 3! The Problem ................................................................................................................ 6! Objectives and Limitations ............................................................................................. 8! Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................... 9! Plan of Dissertation....................................................................................................... 11! Chapter Two: Right Authority, a Literature Review ........................................................ 20! Conventional Just War Theory...................................................................................... 22! Is the State Special? A Brief Survey of Political Legitimacy ....................................... 30! Non-State Right Authority ............................................................................................ 39! The Western tradition of Just War Theory.................................................................... 54! Summing Up ................................................................................................................. 67! Chapter Three: Self-Defense, War, and Discrimination................................................... 70! Literature Review of Discrimination ............................................................................ 73! Self-Defense.................................................................................................................. 83! What's the Point?........................................................................................................... 92! Self-Defense or War?.................................................................................................... 96! War as a Class ............................................................................................................. 100! The Distinctive Character of Self-Defense.............................................................. 103! The Role of Expectation and Threat in McMahan .................................................. 104! War Against Groups, A Literature Review................................................................. 113! A Thought Experiment............................................................................................ 124! War Against Groups—the Theory .............................................................................. 126! Summary of Agency-Freedom Theory.................................................................... 131! v Nonuniformed Members ......................................................................................... 132! The Importance of Cohesion ................................................................................... 134! Illustration: Child Soldiers .......................................................................................... 135! Thought Experiment: American Military Personnel................................................... 139! Practical Implications.................................................................................................. 142! Conclusion: Group Stereotyping and Right Authority................................................ 144! Chapter Four: Standing................................................................................................... 147! Different Kinds of Standing........................................................................................ 148! War Without the Need for Endorsement..................................................................... 154! Acquiring Standing as a Dynamic Process ................................................................. 157! An Aside on Self-Defense....................................................................................... 160! Back to Gaining (And Losing) Standing................................................................. 162! Conclusion................................................................................................................... 163! Chapter Five: Discipline ................................................................................................. 166! Private Military Contractors, A Brief Literature Review............................................ 172! Why Discipline? A Brief Literature Review............................................................... 177! What Grounds the Principle of Discipline? ................................................................ 184! Reciprocal Obligations of Discipline ...................................................................... 190! Self-Discipline............................................................................................................. 192! Requirements of Self-Discipline ............................................................................. 194! Illustration: Mercenaries ............................................................................................. 199! Conclusion................................................................................................................... 204! Chapter Six: Case Study—The Moros of Mindanao...................................................... 208! Historical Overview .................................................................................................... 208! Taking Stock of the Situation in 1996......................................................................... 213! Standing................................................................................................................... 215! Discipline................................................................................................................. 218! Post-1996..................................................................................................................... 220! Taking Stock of Post-1996.......................................................................................... 223! Conclusion................................................................................................................... 225! Chapter Seven: Case Study—The Autodefensas of Mexico .......................................... 227! Emergence of the Autodefensas.................................................................................. 227! vi Taking Stock of the Autodefensas .............................................................................. 233! Autodefensas, Phase Two ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Duty to Defend Compendium: Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania By Bridget M. Gillespie and R. Brandon McCullough What triggers an insurer’s must look to the facts alleged in the underlying com- duty to defend? plaint, not the cause of action pled.”), appeal denied, An insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the 598 Pa. 769, 956 A.2d 436 (2008). When considering factual allegations of the underlying complaint whether there is a duty to defend, the factual allega- “encompass an injury that is actually or potentially tions of the complaint against the insured must be within the scope of the policy.” American & Foreign accepted “as true and liberally construed in favor of Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 606 Pa. 584, 609, the insured.” Jerry’s Sport Ctr., 606 Pa. at 610, 2 A.3d 2 A.3d 526, 541 (2010) (citations omitted). This is at 541 (quoting Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Trav- determined by “comparing the four corners of the elers Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 742 (3d Cir. 1999)). In addi- insurance contract to the four corners of the com- tion, all doubts and ambiguities in policy language plaint.” Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, “an insurer must be resolved in favor of the insured. Id. at 608, 2 may not justifiably refuse to defend a claim against A.3d at 540 (citations omitted). its insured unless it is clear from an examination of The language of the notice provision in the pol- the allegations in the complaint and the language of icy at issue and the facts surrounding the notice the policy that the claim does not potentially come will determine the sufficiency of notice to trigger a within the coverage of the policy.” Id.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court Eastern District Of
    Case 2:11-cv-02375-SM-DEK Document 511 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff No. 11-2375 c/w VERSUS 14-1930, 14-1933, 16-2490 SUPERIOR LABOR SERVICES, SECTION “E” INC., ET AL., Defendants Applies to: 16-2490 ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Great American Excess & Surplus Insurance Company (“Great American”) regarding its duty to defend and duty to indemnify Allied Shipyard, Inc. against claims made in the underlying St. Pierre state-court lawsuit, more fully described below, as an additional insured under Masse’s policies.1 Allied opposes the motion.2 For the reasons set forth below, Great American’s motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND A. State-Court Lawsuits This is a consolidated action. The case originates from two personal-injury actions (“State-Court Lawsuits”) filed in state court against Allied Shipyard, Inc. (“Allied”): Adams, et al. v. Allied Shipyard, Inc., et al. and St. Pierre, et al. v. Allied Shipyard, Inc.3 The plaintiffs in the State-Court Lawsuits allege Allied negligently performed 1 R. Docs. 447. Unless otherwise indicated, “R. Doc.” refers to record documents in the consolidated matter, No. 11-2375. The caption of Great American’s motion for summary judgment indicates the motion applies to Nos. 14-1933 and 16-2490. Great American is no longer a party in 14-1933. 2 R. Doc. 449. 3 R. Docs. 444-3, 444-4, 444-5, 444-6, 444-7, 444-8, 444-9 (Adams Petitions for Damages); R.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Correlation Between the Justification and Glorification of War in Charles Mee's Iphigenia
    An Examination of the Correlation Between the Justification and Glorification of War in Charles Mee’s Iphigenia 2.0: A Director’s Approach Caroline Donica Table of Contents Chapter One: Charles Mee and the History Behind Iphigenia 2.0 4 Introduction 4 The Life and Works of Charles Mee 4 Just War 8 Production History and Reception 11 Survey of Literature 13 Conclusion 15 Chapter Two: Play Analysis 16 Introduction 16 Synopsis 16 Given Circumstances 24 Previous Action 26 Dialogue and Imagery 27 Character Analysis 29 Idea and Theme 34 Conclusion 36 Chapter Three: The Design Process 37 Introduction 37 Production Style 37 Director’s Approach 38 Choice of Stage 38 Collaboration with Designers 40 Set Design 44 Costumes 46 Makeup and Hair 50 Properties 52 Lighting 53 Sound 55 Conclusion 56 Chapter Four: The Rehearsal Process 57 Introduction 57 Auditions and Casting 57 Rehearsals and Acting Strategies 60 Technical and Dress Rehearsals 64 Performances 65 Conclusion 67 Chapter Five: Reflection 68 Introduction 68 Design 68 Staging and Timing 72 Acting 73 Self-Analysis 77 Conclusion 80 Appendices 82 A – Photos Featuring the Set Design 83 B – Photos Featuring the Costume Design 86 C – Photos Featuring the Lighting Design 92 D – Photos Featuring the Concept Images 98 Works Consulted 102 Donica 4 Chapter One Charles Mee and the History Behind Iphigenia 2.0 Introduction Charles Mee’s Iphigenia 2.0 is a significant work in recent theatre history. The play was widely recognized and repeatedly produced for its unique take on contemporary issues, popular culture, and current events set within a framework of ancient myths and historical literature.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Between Anarchy and Leviathan: A Return to Voluntarist Political Obligation Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8pj296m6 Author Hallock, Emily Rachel Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Between Anarchy and Leviathan: A Return to Voluntarist Political Obligation A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Emily Rachel Hallock 2013 © Copyright by Emily Rachel Hallock 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Between Anarchy and Leviathan: A Return to Voluntarist Political Obligation by Emily Rachel Hallock Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Carole Pateman, Chair No defense of the liberal-democratic state can do without political obligation, yet existing theories cannot provide a successful account of political obligation. Existing accounts of obligation cannot parry critiques from rival theories, nor refute philosophical anarchists’ formidable attack on obligation. To move discussion of obligation forward, this dissertation offers an alternative solution to what George Klosko has called the ‘voluntarist paradox’ of liberal-democratic political obligation. While liberal ideas about the individual require that any obligation to obey be assumed through a voluntary act, individuals do not voluntarily assume obligations frequently enough to support legitimacy claims. In response to this paradox, most scholars deploy non-voluntary justifications for a general obligation to obey, while philosophical anarchists deny that such an obligation exists at all. In contrast, I argue that overcoming the voluntarist paradox requires a radically different view of the aims and scope of political obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace and War
    Peace and War Christian Reflection A SERIES IN FAITH AND ETHICS BAYLOR UNIVERSITY GENERAL EDITOR Robert B. Kruschwitz ART EDITOR Heidi J. Hornik REVIEW EDITOR Norman Wirzba PRODUCTION ASSISTANT Julie Bolin DESIGNER Eric Yarbrough PUBLISHER The Center for Christian Ethics Baylor University One Bear Place #97361 Waco, TX 76798-7361 PHONE (254) 710-3774 TOLL-FREE (USA) (866) 298-2325 W E B S I T E www.ChristianEthics.ws E-MAIL [email protected] All Scripture is used by permission, all rights reserved, and unless otherwise indicated is from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. ISSN 1535-8585 Christian Reflection is the ideal resource for discipleship training in the church. Multiple copies are obtainable for group study at $2.50 per copy. Worship aids and lesson materials that enrich personal or group study are available free on the website. Christian Reflection is published quarterly by The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University. Contributors express their considered opinions in a responsible manner. The views expressed are not official views of The Center for Christian Ethics or of Baylor University. The Center expresses its thanks to individuals, churches, and organizations, including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, who provided financial support for this publication. © 2004 The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University All rights reserved Contents Introduction 8 Robert B. Kruschwitz War in the Old Testament 11 John A. Wood The War of the Lamb 18 Harry O. Maier Terrorist Enemies and Just War 27 William T.
    [Show full text]
  • Riddle Butts
    Riddle& Butts, LLP Fiduciary Handbook for Estates A NOTE FROM THE TEAM Introduction Christine served Harris County as Judge of Probate Court 4 from 2011 to 2018. Thank you for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the information in this handbook. The purpose of this handbook John Portnow is a 2011 graduate of Suffolk University Law is to serve as a reference guide, highlighting specific issues School. He also holds a LL.M. in Taxation from Temple Uni- and requirements necessary to administer an estate. We hope versity School of Law and a B.A. in English from Yeshiva the information provided enhances your understanding of this University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude. John has process. Should you be appointed as Executor or Administra- experience consulting with respect to federal and state tax tor of an estate, this handbook will assist you in serving in audits and tax litigation. such capacity in a thoughtful and competent manner. If you have additional questions or concerns, your attorney and our staff are available to provide assistance. About the Team Michael C. Riddle began his practice of law as a gift and estate tax attorney for the Internal Revenue Service. He grad- uated from the University of Houston Law School in 1972 and in 1991 became Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Estate Planning and Probate. He has been guest speaker for 30 years on Christian radio station KHCB 105.7. He is the Managing Partner of Riddle & Butts, LLP and has been practicing law in Harris County and sur- rounding counties for almost 40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Returning Warrior and the Limits of Just War Theory
    THE RETURNING WARRIOR AND THE LIMITS OF JUST WAR THEORY R.J. Delahunty Professor of Law University of St. Thomas School of Law* In this essay, I seek to explore a Christian tradition that is nei- ther the just war theory nor pacifism. Unlike pacifism, this tradi- tion teaches that war is a necessary and inescapable aspect of the human condition, and that Christians cannot escape from engaging in it. Unlike just war theory, this tradition holds that engaging in war is intrinsically sinful, however justifiable that activity may be considered to be in the light of human law, morality or reason. Mi- chael Walzer captured the essence of this way of thinking in a cele- brated essay on the problem of “dirty hands.”1 Although Walzer’s essay was chiefly about political rather than military action, he rightly observed that there was a strand in Christian reflection that saw killing, whether in a just or unjust war, as defiling or even sin- ful, even if it conformed to moral and legal standards. That tradi- tion, though subordinate, still survives in Christian, especially Lu- theran, thought. The Church’s thought about war and peace went through sever- al phases before finally settling on the just war theory. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, the Church’s approach to war was pri- marily pastoral and unsystematic. Although opinions varied widely depending on the circumstances, the early medieval Church was commonly skeptical of the permissibility of killing in warfare. Ra- ther, the Church at that time tended to the view that killing – even in a just war – was sinful and required penance.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Firm Brochure
    REPRESENTATION THROUGH EXPERIENCE, DIVERSITY & CREATIVITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO CHALLENGES THAT FACE OUR CLIENTS Resnick & Louis, P.C. retains an unparalleled team of professionals with diverse backgrounds from across the United States and abroad. Our experienced attorneys We Offer A Partner are licensed in multiple jurisdictions and are well versed in all aspects of negotiation, arbitration, mediation, trial Committed To and resolution of litigated and non-litigated matters. We consistently approach each case differently, finding and Your Goals focusing on the strategies that will achieve the most beneficial results for each client. We continuously involve our clients in our process to ensure their needs are met throughout their entire experience, and take pride in being highly responsive to our clients’ requests. It is our goal to maintain direct and open communication in order to ensure their satisfaction. Our law office is staffed with hardworking and efficient individuals who care about every case and are able to manage a wide variety of tasks for our clients. It is this value-added approach that sets us apart from other law firms in the locations we serve. FIRM OPERATOR: 866.800.5040 / RLATTORNEYS.COM A GLOBAL NETWORK OF OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALS Resnick & Louis P.C. has offices within major U.S. metropolitan areas of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, South National and Carolina, Texas, and Utah and internationally in the United Kingdom. Additionally, many of our attorneys International have licenses in other states. Footprint We provide statewide representation throughout our jurisdictions and maintain an outstanding network of consultants, expert witnesses, and other professionals who are available to assist in our clients’ cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) Policies and Coverage
    Resource ID: w-006-7127 Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) Policies and Coverage JOSEPH M. GAGLIARDO AND SARA P. YAGER, LANER MUCHIN, LTD., WITH PRACTICAL LAW LABOR & EMPLOYMENT Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. A Practice Note discussing employment practices Commercial General Liability Insurance Policies: Property Damage and Bodily Injury Coverage (Coverage A) (9-507-2539). liability insurance (EPLI) policies and coverage Commercial General Liability Insurance Policies: Personal and issues for employers. It covers EPLI’s key Advertising Injury Coverage (Coverage B) (0-507-2567). characteristics, benefits to employers, scope of Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policies (2-504-6515). coverage, and common policy provisions. It also For a collection of insurance-related resources, see Insurance Policies includes practical considerations for employers and Coverage Toolkit (4-506-1171). obtaining EPLI policies. This Note contains OVERVIEW OF EPLI POLICIES general information and is jurisdiction neutral. EPLI is a form of insurance that employers can obtain for certain employment practices liability. It generally covers claims alleging that the employer engaged in unlawful conduct in connection with Employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) policies allow the employment relationship, including claims by individuals such as: employers to mitigate risk and reduce the costs associated with Employees. certain employment-related claims and litigation. EPLI policies are Former employees. a relatively new insurance offering and have become increasingly popular because of: Applicants for employment. The rising volume and costs of employment practices litigation. Certain EPLI policies also may cover claims made by the Equal The employment practices exclusions added to many other Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of these insurance policies.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Indemnification and the Duty to Defend
    AN OVERVIEW OF INDEMNIFICATION AND THE DUTY TO DEFEND Indemnification & Duty to Defend Subcommittee, ACEC Risk Management Committee Subcommittee Chair Theodore D. Levin, P.E., Attorney Morris Polich & Purdy LLP Subcommittee Members Karen Erger, Vice President, Director of Practice Risk Management Lockton Companies, Inc. Albert Rabasca, Director of Industry Relations XL Specialty Insurance Company Homer Sandridge, Underwriting Director, Professional Liability Travelers Insurance Creighton Sebra, Attorney Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP Principles and History One of the most basic principles of tort law is that every person should be responsible for damage that they have caused. Many states have reduced this concept to statute, each stating almost word for word that “Indemnity is a contract by which one engages to save another from a legal consequence of the conduct of one of the parties, or of some other person.”1 In many lawsuits, a plaintiff’s damages are caused by the convergence of several contributing factors originating from several different sources. To give one common example, a plaintiff homeowner alleging property damages resulting from construction defects may assert claims in one lawsuit against any of the diverse parties that contributed various scopes of work to the project, including the general contractor, subcontractors and trades that contributed to the defective work, as well as design professionals such as civil engineers, architects, and structural engineers. To put it even more bluntly, the owner files one suit against everyone in sight. In practice, however, the plaintiff more often merely sues the party or parties with whom he or she contracted, and lets the named defendant(s) do the legwork to identify and sue other parties that may also be responsible.
    [Show full text]
  • Duty to Defend and Duty to Indemnify Checklist by Daniel Cotter, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
    Duty to Defend and Duty to Indemnify Checklist by Daniel Cotter, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC This Duty to Defend and Duty to Indemnify checklist addresses the major duties an insurer commits to under an insurance policy. The duty to defend describes an insurer’s obligation to provide an insured a defense to claims made under a policy. The duty to indemnify describes an insurer’s obligation to pay a claim for loss or damage against an insured. For additional insight into these concepts, see Duty to Defend and Duty to Indemnify; Insurer Duty-to-Defend Standard State Law Survey. The Starting Point Counsel giving advice to clients, whether the policyholder or the insurer, must start by obtaining the insurance contract. Insurers draft special contracts, called insurance policies, providing certain coverages to insureds and certain duties by insurers in the event of a covered loss. Covered loss will be defined in each type of policy and will vary based on the type of policy sold to an insured. The two major duties that an insurer finds itself obligated to an insured for are the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. Finding the Two Duties The duty to defend is a term that describes an insurer’s obligation to provide an insured with a defense to claims made under an insurance policy. The duty to indemnify describes an insurer’s obligation to pay a claim for loss or damage against an insured. Both are typically included in a policy’s insuring agreement. Basics of an Insurance Policy and the Duties The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are primarily found in liability policies—those with third party coverage implications.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Theories of Just War: Understanding Warfare As a Social Tool Through Comparative Analysis of Western, Chinese, and Islamic Classical Theories of War
    THREE THEORIES OF JUST WAR: UNDERSTANDING WARFARE AS A SOCIAL TOOL THROUGH COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WESTERN, CHINESE, AND ISLAMIC CLASSICAL THEORIES OF WAR A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY MAY 2012 By Faruk Rahmanović Thesis Committee: Tamara Albertini, Chairperson Roger T. Ames James D. Frankel Brien Hallett Keywords: War, Just War, Augustine, Sunzi, Sun Bin, Jihad, Qur’an DEDICATION To my parents, Ahmet and Nidžara Rahmanović. To my wife, Majda, who continues to put up with me. To Professor Keith W. Krasemann, for teaching me to ask the right questions. And to Professor Martin J. Tracey, for his tireless commitment to my success. 1 ABSTRACT The purpose of this analysis was to discover the extent to which dictates of war theory ideals can be considered universal, by comparing the Western (European), Classical Chinese, and Islamic models. It also examined the contextual elements that drove war theory development within each civilization, and the impact of such elements on the differences arising in war theory comparison. These theories were chosen for their differences in major contextual elements, in order to limit the impact of contextual similarities on the war theories. The results revealed a great degree of similarities in the conception of warfare as a social tool of the state, utilized as a sometimes necessary, albeit tragic, means of establishing peace justice and harmony. What differences did arise, were relatively minor, and came primarily from the differing conceptions of morality and justice within each civilization – thus indicating a great degree of universality to the conception of warfare.
    [Show full text]