1 a Genealogy of the Ethical Subject in the Just War Tradition a Phd

A Genealogy of the Ethical Subject in the Just War Tradition A PhD Thesis Submitted to King’s College, University of London Peter Lee Department of War Studies Supervisor: Professor Vivienne Jabri May 2010 1 Abstract This thesis draws upon Michel Foucault’s understanding of the ethical subject as being at once both code-constituted (in conforming to code-oriented moralities) and creatively self-constituted (in relation to ethics-oriented moralities) to investigate ethical subjectivity in time of war, specifically within just war discourses. The thesis conducts a genealogical search to unravel this dual representation of the ethical subject of war, starting with the writings of Jean Bethke Elshtain and Michael Walzer which, in turn, prompt a re-reading of iconic figures of just war theorizing on whom they rely: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius and Emer de Vattel. In focusing on the formation of ethical subjectivity, this genealogical inquiry is not constrained by normative distinctions within just war – such as the ad bellum/in bello dichotomy that frames current debate. The genealogy reveals that contemporary use of historical discourses both includes and, importantly, excludes aspects of subjectivity that have emerged previously in the just war tradition. 2 Table of Contents Title page 1 Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 4 1. Introduction 5 2. A Foucauldian understanding of the ethical subject in just war discourse 30 3. Elshtain & Walzer: Just war and intervention 54 4. Augustine: Church, Empire and just war 93 5. Aquinas: Just war as codified morality 122 6. Grotius: Just war and the emergence of the state 150 7. Vattel: Sovereignty, law and just war 179 8. Conclusion 206 Bibliography 234 3 Acknowledgements No project of this nature is ever the product of one individual’s efforts and I would, therefore, like to acknowledge those who have helped me in bringing this thesis to fruition. My greatest thanks must go to my wife, Lorna, and daughters, Samantha and Fiona, whose love and support I try never to take for granted. They fill my life with more beauty and laughter than any individual has the right to enjoy. My supervisor, Professor Vivienne Jabri, has contributed incisive critique and intellectual rigour in a way that has been consistently encouraging, inspiring and, just occasionally, slightly scary. I must thank her for the most demanding and rewarding educational experience of my life and will always aspire to the academic standards she demands of herself and her students. Numerous friends and colleagues have encouraged me with comments, suggestions and critique and I hope none will be offended by this collective expression of my appreciation. I wish, however, to make two exceptions. First, Fr Bob Halshaw who, when I first discussed with him my intention of pursuing a PhD, suggested I was mad and encouraged me not to proceed. While he may well be a good judge of character I am glad I ignored his advice. Second, Mr Tim Pierce, librarian extraordinaire, has assisted me hugely by tracking down countless books and articles – always with great enthusiasm, inspired by a passion for the written word. Finally, I must thank my parents for showing me that life is an adventure to be lived to the full. My father, Peter, implored me from infancy to ‘take your chances’, and I have always sought to do so: that ethos is embodied in this work. My mother, Sheila, has provided the enduring intellectual influence on my life and – in an act of selfless, maternal devotion – identified the most glaring grammatical errors in this thesis. The remaining mistakes are my own. 4 Chapter 1 Introduction This thesis was conceived in April 2003 at a Royal Air Force hospital in Cyprus at the bedsides of wounded and injured soldiers1. Only hours earlier they had been either engaged in battle as the US/UK-led coalition stormed into Iraq, or supporting the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan. As part of a wider war on terror(ism) the majority had been deployed with the stated intention of removing the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from the region and the wider world. Many questions were asked of me by the women and men whose lives were now scarred or maimed, mentally as well as physically: Should I have fought? How do I live with myself? Was it worth it? Have I let anyone down? Will my [partner] still love me [with my injury]? These questions will be re-asked on a daily basis – possibly forever – by those whose limbs are missing, by those whose faces will cause others to turn away in revulsion in the street and by those whose personal relationships have ended or are permanently altered. Two specific questions from those wounded combatants – couched in the language of just war – prompted this author to reflect on how an individual can come to view herself, or himself, as a particular subject of war: Did Blair do the right thing in sending us? Have I been a good soldier? The soldiers did not limit self-reflection to their in bello involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq, with the focus of conversations concentrating on the conduct of a number of individuals: Tony Blair, George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and the soldiers themselves. The questions they raised are ethical questions – individualised questions of right or wrong in the context of war – and questions of ‘the relationship of self to self’: to borrow a phrase from Michel Foucault.2 This constitution of ethical subjectivity in the justification and execution of military intervention represents the bellum justum problematic that prompted this thesis. What gave these questions and conversations their emotional and intellectual force was not just the stark hospital environment in which they were voiced; their force came from the realisation that individual concern with doing ‘the right thing' was an echo of much broader political and academic debate concerning the state, the individual 1 The term ‘soldiers’ is used to denote all combatants from the Army, Navy or Air Force: female or male. 2 Foucault, M., The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981–1982, Ed. Gros, F., Trans. Burchell, G. (New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001a) p. 252. 5 and the morality of war. Such debate had been brought into international focus by a number of military interventions in the 1990s, the events of 11 September 2001 and the desire for a suitable response by American and other governments against Afghanistan and, subsequently, Iraq. On 18 March 2003, only a matter of days before these wounded combatants found themselves in a military hospital, Prime Minister Tony Blair had addressed the UK House of Commons and demanded that the attendant Members of Parliament vote in favour of military action against Iraq: to remove the threat that President Saddam Hussein and his purported WMD posed to his neighbours and the world at large. However, Blair's justification of war was not framed solely in terms of holding the state of Iraq to account under international law for actions and threats, real or perceived. Instead, he framed it as a necessarily individual, ethical choice to be made by his listeners aimed at simply doing, in his words, 'the right thing'.3 In this circular argument 'the right thing' demanded of the MPs was that they support Blair's position in favour of military action against the ‘evil’ Saddam Hussein and his brutal dictatorial practices.4 The emphasis in Blair's discourse was heavily subjectivized as he presented himself as ethical in the very act of opposing Saddam Hussein, the ‘tyrant’ Other.5 In addition to the MPs present in the House of Commons, members of the wider UK population observing across multiple media outlets were being invited by Blair to somehow act ethically by supporting his position – by extension, also doing 'the right thing'. The hospital-bound combatants questioned not only Blair’s justification of the Iraq invasion but their own conduct: asking whether they had been good, effective soldiers. This self-questioning took place in one – or both – of two distinct ways. The first can be described as technical or legalistic. Discussions about battlefield experiences often revolved around the use of weapons and Rules of Engagement: concern about whether the individual had been too slow, or too quick, to open fire and concern about who had, or had not, been fired upon. However, besides a concern to conform to rules and laws, individuals questioned themselves in value terms such as courage, loyalty and professional competence. Would different choices, behaviours or attitudes have resulted in different – injury-free – outcomes? These value-based discussions were less 3 Blair, A., 'Prime Minister's statement opening Iraq debate', 18 March 2003. Unless specified otherwise all subsequent quotes from Blair’s speech transcripts were located at http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5087.asp , accessed 19 June 2006. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 concerned with the law of armed conflict than with individuals’ concern for their own characters. For example, The Ethos, Core Values and Standards of the Royal Air Force incites individuals to develop their own characters in relation to the RAF core values of Respect, Integrity, Service before self and Excellence. Whilst still a serving military chaplain, this author would later explore the significance of these values in service life with officer cadets and new RAF recruits (non-officer cadre): encouraging them to develop their own characters in relation to these core values as a work of self on self. These core values are deemed to contain within them elements such as physical and moral courage, loyalty and pride, amongst others.6 The hospitalised combatants, therefore, assessed whether or not they had been ‘good’ in two distinct ways: the first was about conforming to specific military codes, while the second was about how they creatively formed their own values and characters in specific actions beyond the limitations of those codes.

Load more