1 00:00:00,150 --> 00:00:07,800 Crime, but I am leaving tomorrow with an apology still to those that are here and they won't be able to hear them. 2 00:00:08,340 --> 00:00:14,370 And I promise to read the papers. I already read most of them. 3 00:00:15,300 --> 00:00:20,750 Secondly, I was asked to step in very late in these papers. 4 00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:26,790 It is full of titles. Seth when Seth asks me, ask me to step in. 5 00:00:27,450 --> 00:00:31,170 I sent him the paper he wrote. Interesting comment. 6 00:00:31,740 --> 00:00:35,640 And it's very atypical, Seth, not to be critical. 7 00:00:35,790 --> 00:00:44,630 And then he got it later. I got his comments and I understand what he thinks about the fact that optimistic and. 8 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:50,070 Okay, so it should be issued in the summer. 9 00:00:50,550 --> 00:01:00,690 What? What fascinates me in the just war tradition is that it turns out that there are 10 00:01:00,900 --> 00:01:08,790 if you take the principles of the natural law in which the early jurists fought, 11 00:01:08,940 --> 00:01:14,760 that the international international community is ordered in. 12 00:01:15,060 --> 00:01:19,410 You find out many just causes for many, many. 13 00:01:19,410 --> 00:01:25,350 And we heard about Casper and Casper is going to talk about it later this afternoon. 14 00:01:25,620 --> 00:01:33,820 Girl, talk bit about you just know, for example, redistributive wars seem to be on the face of it. 15 00:01:33,960 --> 00:01:46,320 If you take the principles of the international law in that the natural law by which the society of States is governed by a most early jurists, 16 00:01:46,620 --> 00:01:51,360 it seems on the face of it, that a distributive world are just. 17 00:01:52,970 --> 00:02:01,100 The same is true of preventive war. There is no reason to wait till you are attacked in order to fight back. 18 00:02:01,250 --> 00:02:05,690 Why should we wait till we are? 19 00:02:05,690 --> 00:02:17,270 We are aggressed against. If we can pre-empt and or eliminate the threat before it was more true. 20 00:02:19,730 --> 00:02:32,660 And so the question is how come, according to the interpretation of the international law, there is only one just cause for war? 21 00:02:32,780 --> 00:02:39,500 And it is stated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and this is defensive war. 22 00:02:40,100 --> 00:02:52,940 Why? The notion of self-defence? There should be read and is read by most all in international lawyers, very narrow, very strict. 23 00:02:53,900 --> 00:03:04,940 And the notion of self-defence in Article 51 is construed on the basis of the notion of self-defence in criminal law. 24 00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:14,110 And and this is very relevant. So how come that we have so it under natural law if you want in. 25 00:03:14,150 --> 00:03:23,309 There are so many just clauses for war and under in in the positive international international law there is only one called for 26 00:03:23,310 --> 00:03:35,330 war and and in and it is it is it is strictly construed on the basis of the domestic analogy to a politically organised society, 27 00:03:35,990 --> 00:03:37,450 politically organised society. 28 00:03:38,510 --> 00:03:54,380 And my answer is that under favourable, favourable circumstances in, in states old way, their natural right to go to war go to non is a defensive war. 29 00:03:55,070 --> 00:03:59,740 What are these a favour for your circumstances? 30 00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:05,050 I call them a minimally just symmetric anarchy. 31 00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:15,550 Symmetric anarchy is a situation in which war is parental inferior to bargaining in a 32 00:04:15,590 --> 00:04:25,100 minimally just symmetric kind of situation in which the agreements weigh all rights, 33 00:04:25,130 --> 00:04:33,200 natural rights to go to non defensive war would minimise the violation of the natural law. 34 00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:39,550 I know that it sounds somewhat complicated, but mainly so. 35 00:04:40,250 --> 00:04:48,170 So let me ask Laura to continue my in my defence. 36 00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:54,330 In my defence. Well, let me then start by recapping recapitulating the argument, as I understand it. 37 00:04:54,350 --> 00:04:56,899 So basically under three circumstances. 38 00:04:56,900 --> 00:05:05,510 First is these minimally just symmetric anarchy in light of what is presented in the paper as the morality of international politics. 39 00:05:05,510 --> 00:05:09,230 And then from a counterterrorism perspective, in under these three conditions, 40 00:05:09,620 --> 00:05:15,570 states ought to, in their resort to force, adhere to what is called the domestic society. 41 00:05:15,590 --> 00:05:25,910 You said bellum the DSM, which is the same or accords with international law, basically, with very few exceptions, if only or none at all, actually. 42 00:05:26,150 --> 00:05:29,660 It only allows for a pre-emptive and reactive defence of war. 43 00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,680 So that is the argument basically. And the why should states do that? 44 00:05:34,040 --> 00:05:38,719 Because under these three conditions that we accept this as the morality of international relations, 45 00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:45,170 that we have these minimally just symmetrical anarchy, and that we take it from a sectarian point of view under these three conditions. 46 00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:54,049 Doing that, adhering to the DSM or international law is mutually beneficial and it reduces violations of the legalistic paradigm, 47 00:05:54,050 --> 00:05:57,920 which is what is in the paper posited as the morality of international policy. 48 00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:05,480 What the paper accomplishes with that and that's quite powerful, is basically saying that what we already do. 49 00:06:05,550 --> 00:06:09,459 What what is what sort of works in international and the international system, 50 00:06:09,460 --> 00:06:14,430 which is the legal paradigm, is also what from a moral point, moral point of view we ought to be doing. 51 00:06:14,710 --> 00:06:16,480 And that's quite a powerful accomplishment, 52 00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:22,540 because we all have this lingering sense that the international law and the use of force is on morally thin ice. 53 00:06:23,050 --> 00:06:30,250 Um, but what the paper acknowledges is that the prescription to adhere to the legal paradigm or to be, 54 00:06:30,250 --> 00:06:34,350 as Jeff as it is called, is contingent on these two things. 55 00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:41,860 On the one hand, on the fact that these circumstances minimally just symmetric anarchy is what we actually have. 56 00:06:41,860 --> 00:06:45,969 And the paper somewhat oscillates between at the beginning hinting at saying that's what 57 00:06:45,970 --> 00:06:51,220 we want is there like we actually minimally just symmetric anarchy is sort of empirically 58 00:06:51,220 --> 00:06:55,330 valid and then later prescribing that states are to actually bring about these 59 00:06:55,330 --> 00:07:00,190 circumstances and Kasper and Gerber and I will come back to whether that's the problem. 60 00:07:00,520 --> 00:07:06,370 And but then and the second sort of condition, which is the coherence of the argument that what is really presented as a 61 00:07:06,370 --> 00:07:11,980 legalistic paradigm LP is actually what is the morality of international politics? 62 00:07:12,370 --> 00:07:16,870 And I will sort of focus on these two conditions. And first on LP, what is that? 63 00:07:17,740 --> 00:07:23,500 Well, it's actually it starts out by bringing in different traditional and modern versions of it and quoting 64 00:07:23,500 --> 00:07:28,510 Wells and Walzer and Rawls and many fathers in the history of ideas of the legalistic paradigm. 65 00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:33,399 But then I actually want to judge it on the merit of on its own merit, 66 00:07:33,400 --> 00:07:40,840 because I think what you ultimately end up presenting as LP is quite like a good distance away, even from Baltar. 67 00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:48,160 So basically what I feel you're doing in the paper is presenting on the one hand the legal paradigm, yes, Jeb. 68 00:07:48,580 --> 00:07:54,130 And then sort of saying the established antagonists to that are the cosmopolitans or the human rights based approaches, 69 00:07:54,340 --> 00:08:01,479 and then carving out space between those two for a third theory of aggression, which is which you refer to as LP Jep. 70 00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:03,610 And like the first sort of question I had is, 71 00:08:03,610 --> 00:08:09,670 does it really still make sense to call that LP job if it's kind of far away from what we all associate with that? 72 00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:14,050 But that's sort of a minor point of the first sort of question I would have. 73 00:08:14,530 --> 00:08:15,969 Is that actually successful? 74 00:08:15,970 --> 00:08:23,980 The endeavour to carve out space between the legal paradigm of the resort to force and then sort of the established antagonist, the cosmopolitans, 75 00:08:24,790 --> 00:08:29,080 because a your LP job is based on individual rights, 76 00:08:29,260 --> 00:08:34,390 you say that ultimately states rights are grounded in collective rights to self-determination, which are grounded in individual rights. 77 00:08:34,810 --> 00:08:39,370 And if push comes to shove, the paper is quite clear. Individual rights are the ones that count the Trump. 78 00:08:40,030 --> 00:08:46,030 And when the paper then discusses the precise distance between cosmopolitanism and LP, Jeb is sort of vague, 79 00:08:46,090 --> 00:08:54,729 saying the same things, saying that, yeah, that they take that alQaeda takes states rights more seriously. 80 00:08:54,730 --> 00:09:01,990 So that remains a little bit unclear. The two nations that are provide it between cosmopolitanism and LP have problems as well. 81 00:09:01,990 --> 00:09:06,160 The first is the rejection of the consequentialist reasoning of cosmopolitans. 82 00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:11,620 So LP Jeb is presented as being in that sense really different because it rejects 83 00:09:11,620 --> 00:09:16,150 the notion that overall maximisation of rights is at all a valid standard. 84 00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:21,580 But then I think, I mean, at the end of the argument and I will come back to that as well, 85 00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:28,870 why LP sort of yields to the legal paradigm is justified with the consequentialist standard as well, 86 00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:34,480 the sort of maximisation of maximisation of mutual benefit and the minimisation of violations of LP. 87 00:09:34,780 --> 00:09:41,770 And if LP is not that different from cosmopolitanism after all, then what we end up is a justification of overall maximisation of individual rights. 88 00:09:42,130 --> 00:09:48,610 Maybe I'm not getting how the contract, Terry, an analysis that gets into that at some point sort of neutralises the consequence. 89 00:09:48,970 --> 00:09:57,129 But in my view, ultimately this paper makes the consequences of the second alienation that is offered and that might actually 90 00:09:57,130 --> 00:10:03,640 make a difference is that LP doesn't talk about individual rights per se and the right to life per se, 91 00:10:03,640 --> 00:10:09,720 but the right to a meaningful life which is stipulated. That's only happening in a political community according to yeah. 92 00:10:09,970 --> 00:10:16,060 So yeah, but yeah, but, and I think that's a meaningful difference. 93 00:10:16,060 --> 00:10:19,540 But then if we ask what difference does that actually make in the context of this particular 94 00:10:19,540 --> 00:10:23,380 argument where we are trying to figure out when is resort to force justified or not? 95 00:10:23,950 --> 00:10:29,769 I mean, it seems doesn't make a very big difference. Looking at the table as suggested only makes a difference in the sort of marginal 96 00:10:29,770 --> 00:10:33,160 case where wars are only about territorial boundaries and about nothing else. 97 00:10:33,580 --> 00:10:39,420 So I sort of I would as my first sort of criticism, I would say I'm not entirely sure like the LP, 98 00:10:39,430 --> 00:10:42,700 Jeff, is sort of a theory of aggression in its own right. 99 00:10:44,020 --> 00:10:50,679 But the only say indifference that I think remains after all kinds of scrutinising between LP and 100 00:10:50,680 --> 00:10:57,040 cosmopolitanism is that LP allows for partiality of states and doesn't think that is in any way problematic. 101 00:10:57,040 --> 00:11:02,560 And there I. Actually come to the more fundamental problem I have with LP Jeff because why is that? 102 00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:07,600 For partiality it's that it is grounded in the state of nature. 103 00:11:07,660 --> 00:11:14,080 Basically I asked the paper where do I get the justification by LP, Jeff is the morality of international politics. 104 00:11:14,410 --> 00:11:22,690 And the only justification I could find is that it springs from a lockean state of nature that's contrary to disturb the law, 105 00:11:22,690 --> 00:11:25,960 which I suppose presumes some kind of political organisation. 106 00:11:26,560 --> 00:11:32,680 But I think I do understand that philosophers think the state of nature has some kind of bear, some kind of moral weight. 107 00:11:33,190 --> 00:11:39,639 But in the in the context in the context of an argument about trying to come up 108 00:11:39,640 --> 00:11:44,290 with a prescription of how states should act in a certain political environment, 109 00:11:44,290 --> 00:11:49,150 certainly it's not the state of nature that we should look at because the international system isn't born right. 110 00:11:49,290 --> 00:11:54,879 It does have a certain degree of political organisation and we don't aspire for it to resemble the state of nature. 111 00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:58,840 Quite the contrary, to the extent that it does, that is usually considered problematic. 112 00:11:59,620 --> 00:12:07,750 And I think the fact that this has implications for the argument, if I may quote you at a certain length. 113 00:12:07,900 --> 00:12:12,280 So the paper argues that decent states and that's an assumption most states are decent, 114 00:12:12,850 --> 00:12:17,140 might disagree on their entitlements because there is partiality, error and bias. 115 00:12:17,680 --> 00:12:25,150 That means even decent states that respect LP might go to war in order to enforce what they consider their LP rights. 116 00:12:25,510 --> 00:12:29,770 In the long run, crimes of aggression are bound to happen in a political and organised society. 117 00:12:30,100 --> 00:12:37,389 So I guess how you get from partiality error and bias to conflict if you accept states are fashioning ought to be 118 00:12:37,390 --> 00:12:43,240 and that's all right there will be conflict but then how you get from conflict to inevitability of aggression 119 00:12:43,300 --> 00:12:49,810 that is I think the fact that you just accept that transition is a result of the fact that you have the state of 120 00:12:49,810 --> 00:12:55,480 nature in mind and underestimate the degree of political organisation that there is in the international system. 121 00:12:56,230 --> 00:13:04,900 Let me give you an example. I mean, it's a truism that there is no enforcement mechanism that states ultimately that we still have a self help system. 122 00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:12,700 But beyond thinking of an institution that might actually be the use of force and force states claims instead of them, 123 00:13:13,090 --> 00:13:19,870 what you would just need is a higher authority or an authority that has interpretive capacities, that reduces the epistemic problems. 124 00:13:20,350 --> 00:13:29,730 A large part of the argument in favour of your ultimately DSM is that it reduces problems of bias and error and lack of information. 125 00:13:30,100 --> 00:13:36,580 So what you basically basically need and what you underestimate is the capacity of organisation to reduce these epistemic problems. 126 00:13:36,970 --> 00:13:45,070 And that's sort of a step below and much less problematic or demanding than aspiring for higher authority that enforces with the use of force, 127 00:13:45,070 --> 00:13:52,210 the rights of states and therefore gets over self-help totally. So I think basically as a result, 128 00:13:52,360 --> 00:13:56,679 your argument is vulnerable to the contention that even under the circumstances that you 129 00:13:56,680 --> 00:14:01,450 proclaim is not the best way available because you underestimate the capacity of organisation. 130 00:14:02,560 --> 00:14:07,750 However, even if we accepted that what you say that these epistemic problems are just 131 00:14:07,750 --> 00:14:11,350 a given and we don't think about organisations that we can't get over them. 132 00:14:11,680 --> 00:14:17,770 Even then, I still have a problem with the paper's contention that ultimately under the circumstances that you describe, 133 00:14:17,800 --> 00:14:25,900 what is prohibited under these steps, the law ultimately is also what would be would not be justified under LP. 134 00:14:25,900 --> 00:14:33,730 So basically what you're saying is that given all of these information problems and error and bias, these two actually approximate each other. 135 00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:40,600 That's what you're saying at the end. And I think that is not true because even if it might not be better, 136 00:14:40,750 --> 00:14:45,820 might be better not to wage certain wars that you might you have the right to under LP because you have in 137 00:14:45,850 --> 00:14:53,330 certain circumstances with the information problem whatever that they are still desirable under the code of LP. 138 00:14:53,350 --> 00:14:58,419 Right. So the only way you can make this argument if you accept that the overall consequentialist point 139 00:14:58,420 --> 00:15:03,910 that given that states have these problems and the international system is like that trumps your, 140 00:15:04,150 --> 00:15:07,570 your own sort of value standard that you erect under LP. Right? 141 00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:11,080 So I think that's basically that claim is either really, 142 00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:17,620 really consequentialist or you should maybe just drop it because it's sort of as intention with your argument before one last point, 143 00:15:19,070 --> 00:15:27,280 sort of related related to that, 144 00:15:28,060 --> 00:15:34,570 basically the obvious question by accepting reify the conditions that you call minimally just symmetrical anarchy, 145 00:15:34,570 --> 00:15:40,270 you say yourself that distributions of power are fragile, so the symmetry might just vanish at any point in time anyway. 146 00:15:40,270 --> 00:15:44,530 Right. But why accept a minimal, minimal justice and anarchy? 147 00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:52,570 I mean, it's just a different way of phrasing my criticism, but why should be but why not aim higher, so to speak? 148 00:15:53,200 --> 00:15:57,430 And basically what I suspect you're doing is sort of making a circular argument. 149 00:15:58,280 --> 00:16:02,990 I have conditions which allow for Dsf to be the best approximation of LP, 150 00:16:04,490 --> 00:16:11,660 but this is entirely contingent on these just in its justification on the presence of those very contingent conditions. 151 00:16:11,660 --> 00:16:17,780 So in a way that the certainty that you don't provide an outside justification by these conditions ought to be here. 152 00:16:18,410 --> 00:16:25,490 So let me wrap up basically my conclusion that my question is that if we have, as you say, rational, 153 00:16:25,520 --> 00:16:31,510 mostly decent states that accept LP the legalistic paradigm as the goal and as the morality of international politics, 154 00:16:31,940 --> 00:16:39,079 but then take seriously the capacity of states to organise themselves and thus the international system to graduate from the state of nature, 155 00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:45,590 so to speak. And so reducing the epistemic problem, maybe we can aim higher than the step. 156 00:16:45,620 --> 00:16:50,960 So what I think is ultimately it's not justified, properly response. 157 00:16:53,750 --> 00:16:57,770 Thank you for the comments. No, these are really great. Come in. 158 00:16:59,330 --> 00:17:08,570 I think that they focus on two points. First of all, the difference between in LP and cosmopolitanism. 159 00:17:10,570 --> 00:17:14,040 Look, I prefer states that will. 160 00:17:14,770 --> 00:17:21,400 I prefer the system of a decent states that are partially licensed. 161 00:17:21,640 --> 00:17:33,300 Why? Because I want my state. State to prefer me on others, since other states, other states can prefer their own citizens. 162 00:17:33,310 --> 00:17:40,030 So partiality is in is part or is an aspect of the moral standing of states. 163 00:17:40,720 --> 00:17:48,459 Now, you say totally correctly that they don't defend the international the way early 164 00:17:48,460 --> 00:17:58,630 jurists even conceive the law of nature by which the society of states is is ordered. 165 00:17:58,990 --> 00:18:01,990 It seems to me you have a great intuitive appeal. 166 00:18:02,920 --> 00:18:13,799 We don't. Sorry. First of all, I want we state to in to help its school before it goes to it. 167 00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:21,330 Before it levels any help to others to other to other states pull in. 168 00:18:21,660 --> 00:18:26,100 And it seems to me that every journalist got it right. 169 00:18:26,100 --> 00:18:37,080 So and I agree that they don't. Defending the facility must be part of our conception of international society. 170 00:18:37,410 --> 00:18:43,500 States are decent. All statehood is such that states are partial. 171 00:18:43,650 --> 00:18:47,370 Impartiality in this sense is not morally flawed. 172 00:18:49,110 --> 00:18:57,120 I agree that I don't see much about this in the paper, but they can only assume so many other things that they say. 173 00:18:57,690 --> 00:19:03,750 I. I in I re-emphasised that in. 174 00:19:03,900 --> 00:19:09,470 The second question is why okay. The accusation of security. 175 00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:10,950 This is something that they don't accept. 176 00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:27,840 I think the fully under which conditions they in the current international law and it has the paper has an explanatory ambition namely to explain why 177 00:19:28,260 --> 00:19:42,060 the international law is is in the post world war two international the UN charter in Article 51 are interpreted in the way they are interpreted, 178 00:19:42,660 --> 00:19:51,300 namely in accordance with. There is only just cause for self-defence, and the notion of self-defence is very strictly, very narrowly interpreted. 179 00:19:51,420 --> 00:19:57,230 This is something that they don't understand in light of the wonderful words that in 180 00:19:57,750 --> 00:20:06,840 those who are you confused it cosmopolitan it produced in the last 1015 years great 181 00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:13,499 work just calls for war would be a much more much more proliferate and we don't find 182 00:20:13,500 --> 00:20:16,890 it in the international law and we don't find it in the international community. 183 00:20:17,370 --> 00:20:34,510 Why? The answer is the fallen. The Draughters imagined the world or the dream about a world which can be described as minimally just asymmetrical. 184 00:20:35,380 --> 00:20:38,500 They think they take anarchy as given. 185 00:20:38,740 --> 00:20:42,160 Now we might aim higher. That's what we might do. 186 00:20:42,370 --> 00:20:46,720 But they take anarchy as it's given. And they think that once. 187 00:20:46,750 --> 00:20:55,090 When we talk about about using force, this presumption is justified. 188 00:20:55,510 --> 00:21:02,140 I wouldn't like this is we are going to hear you are going to be give speaker tomorrow. 189 00:21:02,380 --> 00:21:15,430 He's going to aim for more, namely international institutions that will reduce if the biases will reduce in in lack of information flow and so forth. 190 00:21:15,730 --> 00:21:19,150 To my mind, this will have many other problems. 191 00:21:19,150 --> 00:21:30,219 This organisation, this in a thicker organised society, will have problematic programmatic consequences in other places. 192 00:21:30,220 --> 00:21:33,820 And moreover, will states think about using force? 193 00:21:33,940 --> 00:21:41,760 Namely, when states think about it, their own defence, their own security, they should not trust in others. 194 00:21:41,770 --> 00:21:45,010 They should not trust in transformational institution in this way. 195 00:21:45,160 --> 00:21:56,400 Anarchy should be presumed in the draughters it prohibited in any know. 196 00:21:56,410 --> 00:22:06,280 All non-defense improves in order because they believe that the they live or the they want to live in a minimally a just symmetric anarchy. 197 00:22:06,430 --> 00:22:10,089 And let me just add another point that you didn't impress me on, 198 00:22:10,090 --> 00:22:18,669 but this is something that they should should make it clear in it people might believe. 199 00:22:18,670 --> 00:22:24,010 And I think that Casper believes Gerhardt believes that we live in an unjust this 200 00:22:24,010 --> 00:22:31,060 is not a minimally just a symmetric because the inequalities are obviously the 201 00:22:32,580 --> 00:22:39,879 inequality is obviously unfair in my response to that would be that they might be 202 00:22:39,880 --> 00:22:46,450 right but that this cannot states all the way their right to go to this world. 203 00:22:47,290 --> 00:22:55,300 Because even if you are right, there are so many people that disagree who disagree with you, as you have just said about, quote, you. 204 00:22:56,020 --> 00:23:04,120 There are so many people who disagree about about that. We have a problem, problems of information in applying the natural. 205 00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:17,230 Now we want to call LP the natural law. Okay the natural law permission to go to work because since we don't have a good conception of this, 206 00:23:17,290 --> 00:23:20,740 we don't converge on this on the theory of justice, 207 00:23:20,920 --> 00:23:30,070 we have this kind of second all the reason to wave a right, to use force on the basis of justice considerations. 208 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:38,830 So this is explanatory. If, if if I am right that the international law should be interpreted in the way that they present it, 209 00:23:38,830 --> 00:23:43,520 namely it prohibits all non defensive wars and defend right. 210 00:23:43,520 --> 00:23:46,750 That natural law allows a lot of them. 211 00:23:47,050 --> 00:23:52,300 Then the with the draughters it prohibited these wars. 212 00:23:52,540 --> 00:24:04,510 They prohibited them on the basis of the thought that we live in the meaning just symmetric anarchy all that we are able to establish this 213 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:16,750 in organisation this arrangement it very well this will be the best moral interpretation of of the quote which states submitted themselves. 214 00:24:18,070 --> 00:24:23,720 Well I would say that that at that time that might have been do like me to say something about consequential. 215 00:24:24,100 --> 00:24:33,850 Yeah maybe that's a better book in the difference between counterterrorism and consequentialist. 216 00:24:33,850 --> 00:24:36,310 These is generally not very clear. 217 00:24:37,690 --> 00:24:50,540 I would say that if anything, terrorism is insists on parental efficiency rather than on aggregate maximising the utility of something like that. 218 00:24:50,980 --> 00:24:56,010 So all states should benefit or all parties should benefit from the contract. 219 00:24:56,020 --> 00:25:00,190 This is one point. The other point is that it's not. Well, 220 00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:06,280 I think that you talk you don't talk about consequential when you try to identify my 221 00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:11,350 position with you are talking about truly consequential the consequence of reason realism. 222 00:25:11,380 --> 00:25:16,420 If you don't know exactly what is going on there, what do they look? 223 00:25:16,660 --> 00:25:20,200 What do you mean by saying that are what are the best rules? 224 00:25:20,820 --> 00:25:25,800 The rules that are followed in. 225 00:25:26,430 --> 00:25:31,450 The best outcome is these are the rules that they have to follow. 226 00:25:31,470 --> 00:25:35,129 Now, in the worst outcome, what type of rules? 227 00:25:35,130 --> 00:25:39,840 How do they find the rules? When I talk about an agreement in actual agreement, 228 00:25:39,960 --> 00:25:47,840 I'm talking about something that and I'm talking about something that is real that we know exactly what would come. 229 00:25:51,090 --> 00:25:57,479 Well, on your first point that you said that the basically the normative momentum of minimal or just symmetric 230 00:25:57,480 --> 00:26:02,430 anarchy comes from the fact that the DRAUGHTERS envisaged envisage that to be the international system. 231 00:26:02,430 --> 00:26:07,559 I think we have evolved past it right past 1945 and the system has gotten past that. 232 00:26:07,560 --> 00:26:13,080 And I don't think that in itself would. That's right. What's given up for making this the prescriptive? 233 00:26:13,120 --> 00:26:21,890 Yeah, I agree. So if he's Jeff might be able to convince us that there is a better arrangement, then I would give up. 234 00:26:21,900 --> 00:26:27,570 But I think that there are many other problems in this type of institution. 235 00:26:27,570 --> 00:26:31,890 Of course we put it. And on your point of distinguishing between different types of consequences. 236 00:26:32,130 --> 00:26:35,850 That's true. Like I wasn't saying, you are ultimately doing the same as cosmopolitanism. 237 00:26:35,850 --> 00:26:41,249 I'm just saying that the rather rigorous rejection of the cause of consequential 238 00:26:41,250 --> 00:26:46,050 ism as an aspect of cosmopolitanism becomes over at the end because it is outward. 239 00:26:46,170 --> 00:26:54,720 Moreover, one of my points in the paper is to show that and in fact, when you read are and rules properly, 240 00:26:55,050 --> 00:27:04,260 or if you if you develop the principles that motivate their projects, you come up with minor differences. 241 00:27:05,910 --> 00:27:11,330 One of them is partiality. The other is taking sovereignty more seriously then, of course, than pursue. 242 00:27:12,540 --> 00:27:18,660 But humanitarian interventions in economic wars and pre-emptive war, preventive wars. 243 00:27:19,080 --> 00:27:28,860 All these wars should be on the basis of the principle that multiple projects should be, should be allowed, 244 00:27:28,950 --> 00:27:39,209 or their causes must be might be just something that we're going to try to keep the one finger jumping accused system, 245 00:27:39,210 --> 00:27:53,550 but it is one trial, so there can only be one or two and they have to be genuinely short and snappy and genuinely relevant otherwise. 246 00:27:53,820 --> 00:27:57,810 Otherwise, I'm not going to let you keep going. I'm going to cut you off. 247 00:27:58,170 --> 00:28:04,590 And it's I think a sort of cross examination is terrific, but you can't do that with a finger. 248 00:28:04,590 --> 00:28:10,620 You have to get in line. So I'll let you follow up when your proper turn comes. 249 00:28:10,620 --> 00:28:15,449 But you can't take over with the finger. Okay, so I need to get a line up here. 250 00:28:15,450 --> 00:28:21,330 Okay. Ryan McMahon. So I'm forgetting your name now, but I know who I mean. 251 00:28:21,570 --> 00:28:24,760 Oh, Immortan Latifi. 252 00:28:25,920 --> 00:28:29,220 Oh, Graham. Okay, that's plenty is starting. And. 253 00:28:29,820 --> 00:28:33,090 All right. Chaney, Ryan, Jenny Ryan, University of Oregon. 254 00:28:33,900 --> 00:28:36,840 I really like, you know, the discussion this time. 255 00:28:36,920 --> 00:28:46,470 But let me maybe pose a question in terms of a contrast between how I read Walter and what you're doing. 256 00:28:46,980 --> 00:28:53,459 You know, when Walter talks about the word convention, clearly when he talks about relations between soldiers, 257 00:28:53,460 --> 00:28:57,470 but has this sort of sense of it's kind of filtering from the bottom up. 258 00:28:57,480 --> 00:28:58,469 It talks about how, you know, 259 00:28:58,470 --> 00:29:06,810 soldiers are sort of stuck in this thing together and they kind of reach this these sort of agreements about kind of minimising things like that. 260 00:29:06,810 --> 00:29:12,690 And sort of the notion of convention generally has a notion of sort of, you know, I think something that comes about more naturally. 261 00:29:13,070 --> 00:29:20,309 But it seems to me the notion of a contract between states is is a little bit different than that. 262 00:29:20,310 --> 00:29:24,900 And I'm wondering whether it really addresses some of the kinds of objections you would have. 263 00:29:24,900 --> 00:29:32,580 And let me draw draw a parallel based on my own, you know, history of low intensity warfare with my institution. 264 00:29:36,420 --> 00:29:43,079 I'm constantly told that the department heads have agreed to do something together or that 265 00:29:43,080 --> 00:29:47,580 the deans have time to do together within the pact and has agreed to do something together. 266 00:29:48,060 --> 00:29:52,500 And I always kind of feel like, well, those are all institutions that in some sense have legitimacy in my eyes. 267 00:29:52,500 --> 00:29:56,100 I'm not sort of saying I'm saying that that they should be abolished. 268 00:29:56,520 --> 00:30:03,059 But it always strikes me that that only has a little bit to do with what I would want to do is a professor or something like that. 269 00:30:03,060 --> 00:30:10,139 It's not irrelevant to it, but it certainly doesn't answer the question of sort of what are my full moral obligations and stuff. 270 00:30:10,140 --> 00:30:13,799 And so I wonder whether maybe this is implicit in your account of the state, 271 00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:22,230 but I really wonder whether the fact that states would agree, you know, not to go to war, not to go to war or whatever. 272 00:30:22,410 --> 00:30:29,860 You know, and, you know, one of the problems is a problem that I've talked about it and Jeff talks about and other people about, you know, what? 273 00:30:29,860 --> 00:30:33,020 What if there's clearly a just cause and the state. 274 00:30:33,060 --> 00:30:38,430 Because the problem is that states don't it's not that they just agree not to go to war over certain things. 275 00:30:38,670 --> 00:30:41,459 They also tell other people not to do anything about it. 276 00:30:41,460 --> 00:30:45,720 You know, I'm saying they prevent other people from taking actions, which is a stronger thing. 277 00:30:46,330 --> 00:30:49,710 So, so, so. And I'm sorry, because I'm really wondering. 278 00:30:49,800 --> 00:30:53,880 Whether someone you say, okay, you can get that agreement between states, 279 00:30:54,480 --> 00:31:00,690 but the international law of conflict or one court is appropriate but maybe should be broadened. 280 00:31:01,170 --> 00:31:06,800 Mm hmm. Is. What this is. 281 00:31:06,950 --> 00:31:11,480 This is, I think, a problem with every thing. 282 00:31:12,440 --> 00:31:21,110 It might be the best. Well, this is something that Jeff totally taught us in in in in the context of the laws of. 283 00:31:21,950 --> 00:31:26,600 But I think that this is a genuine feature of every law. 284 00:31:26,630 --> 00:31:30,950 It is genuine. In many circumstances, you are justified. 285 00:31:31,220 --> 00:31:36,950 You are justified in violating. And if it were made to prohibit that, 286 00:31:36,980 --> 00:31:48,110 rather than if it is if the war used in is prohibited just because we agreed to prohibit you, then the temptation to go to war. 287 00:31:48,500 --> 00:31:55,130 If we get what you think to be a just war committed, just war is greater. 288 00:31:55,370 --> 00:32:00,920 And in my framework, this is the framework the that I'm trying to develop. 289 00:32:01,310 --> 00:32:09,890 You might you might violate the other party rights that you won't go to this war against it. 290 00:32:10,460 --> 00:32:13,960 It is protected by the law. And the law is the best tool that you have. 291 00:32:14,510 --> 00:32:23,330 The more a right that you will comply with the law. And still you are justified in voting because it will bring the best consequences. 292 00:32:24,620 --> 00:32:37,070 So it's very important to me that that the law is in a sense, the acceptance of the law is effective, namely, it generates genuine moral rights. 293 00:32:37,340 --> 00:32:41,140 But in many circumstances we have it. 294 00:32:41,390 --> 00:32:48,760 We are justified in fighting the ones, right? This happens a lot in my argument. 295 00:32:48,800 --> 00:32:52,040 Would law law lower the bar? 296 00:32:52,070 --> 00:32:56,180 Namely, if these laws are nearing monopoly, 297 00:32:57,050 --> 00:33:07,820 namely under the natural law in the are just then the temptation to go to use those are very is very very deep. 298 00:33:08,240 --> 00:33:11,840 And if you know many I think that Larry is not here. 299 00:33:11,840 --> 00:33:20,640 But this was his argument last year in that he thinks that humanitarian intervention should be. 300 00:33:21,020 --> 00:33:26,660 Well, he's very sceptical about humanitarian interventions and my wife is very sceptical. 301 00:33:26,900 --> 00:33:30,260 And no, I thought that you just denied. 302 00:33:30,690 --> 00:33:35,090 Oh yeah. So he's very sceptical of you. Sceptical because this, 303 00:33:35,270 --> 00:33:49,370 this permission to go to to intervene in the internal affairs of another state is very dangerous once it becomes the norm, that is. 304 00:33:49,370 --> 00:33:57,680 And that's why he would love certain state to go in to save people, but he would admit that the law should be different. 305 00:34:00,110 --> 00:34:05,350 Joining me is. The old technical. 306 00:34:06,630 --> 00:34:17,210 Anyway. Response to need that you want your state to be partial to you. 307 00:34:20,300 --> 00:34:23,570 Happy for other people's states to give priority. 308 00:34:24,800 --> 00:34:31,030 And that reminded me of the point that part of the three reasons in the persons which is that. 309 00:34:32,980 --> 00:34:39,820 My children are likely to do less well under a system of parental partiality. 310 00:34:40,990 --> 00:34:45,760 I give priority to my children over a greater number of your children. 311 00:34:46,230 --> 00:34:51,500 You give? Other people give. A greater number of other children. 312 00:34:52,980 --> 00:35:03,340 All children are going to do this as well. Now you can say I will do less well by my children if I choose a system of partiality rather than just. 313 00:35:06,080 --> 00:35:09,170 Now, you might think that in the case of a parent child relation, 314 00:35:11,120 --> 00:35:23,290 can it can clarify in all circumstances that we designed designed circumstances in which impartiality would be better for your children overall. 315 00:35:24,080 --> 00:35:28,480 And this is an empirical claim. I take a look at the case. 316 00:35:28,490 --> 00:35:32,150 I was going to I was going to introduce the complexities in my next remark. 317 00:35:32,420 --> 00:35:39,440 But just to take the case of, say, saving, I limit it to a thing about saving lives. 318 00:35:39,440 --> 00:35:53,180 And I had to save my one child or your child. And you can take one of your children as opposed to two of mine, and we all have this permission. 319 00:35:55,930 --> 00:36:00,070 In general. It's Russia as well. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. 320 00:36:01,090 --> 00:36:04,989 I was going to say the cost of that in the case of our job is I think that that 321 00:36:04,990 --> 00:36:10,750 relation has a certain kind of intrinsic significance that it would be impossible to. 322 00:36:13,680 --> 00:36:22,190 Recognise and sustain in a world in which people didn't get this kind of power that are chosen in relation to what it is that's important. 323 00:36:23,820 --> 00:36:27,270 But the relation between citizen and state isn't like that at all. 324 00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:32,490 Or state to citizen. I should say it's a purely instrumental significance. 325 00:36:34,220 --> 00:36:45,860 In a way that the parent child relation. So I just wanted to call this feature of your claim to your attention in the light 326 00:36:45,860 --> 00:36:51,889 of your suggestion that what contract sharing is looks to create a optimality. 327 00:36:51,890 --> 00:36:56,840 That's what distinguishes it from consequentialist instead of the partial list view. 328 00:36:57,380 --> 00:37:01,000 Of course it doesn't maximise, but it also fails the greater task. 329 00:37:01,040 --> 00:37:11,420 So you're saying you want all states to act with respect to their own citizens in a way which that state is universalised? 330 00:37:11,540 --> 00:37:18,790 Mm hmm. Mm hmm. And that's right. 331 00:37:18,800 --> 00:37:26,870 The question is whether this arrangement that you imagine is feasible and what are the constraints of visibility. 332 00:37:27,320 --> 00:37:38,270 So I, I, I tend to believe that we are facing a prisoner's dilemma problem, even in the perfect arrangement. 333 00:37:38,270 --> 00:37:50,990 Namely, under this arrangement, our children will do less because we tend to we won't trust each other. 334 00:37:51,380 --> 00:37:56,780 We won't I won't trust you that you will have my my children and you won't trust me. 335 00:37:57,470 --> 00:38:01,580 I will help you. So there are some flexibility constraints. 336 00:38:02,660 --> 00:38:06,830 The best outcome? Mutual disarmament, for example, it is presented in my. 337 00:38:07,020 --> 00:38:08,630 That is unfeasible. 338 00:38:08,660 --> 00:38:17,750 I presume that it is unfeasible because there is a kind of suspicious that we cannot go over and the suspicious so suspicion that we cannot overcome. 339 00:38:17,750 --> 00:38:21,260 And the suspicion is rational innocence. Okay. 340 00:38:21,260 --> 00:38:30,290 So, okay, Patrick, everybody thinks of air conditioning because I think that there is good young people. 341 00:38:30,290 --> 00:38:34,670 Hot or cold. Freezing. Freezing. Yeah. Yeah. 342 00:38:34,910 --> 00:38:49,460 This is what you need is always freezing. But I give him a green card if we get really hot. 343 00:38:49,480 --> 00:39:01,180 So lots of people would really like to thank you for taking some of the. 344 00:39:02,230 --> 00:39:06,930 Yeah. Okay. 345 00:39:07,650 --> 00:39:14,600 Good. Successful revolt. All right, Patrick Everton. I'll go down the pipe. 346 00:39:14,600 --> 00:39:17,720 A very interesting, you know, sort of like the structure of the argument. 347 00:39:18,200 --> 00:39:29,750 It's I had a couple of questions I will allow everybody to do with vindicating sort of contempt for international law. 348 00:39:30,110 --> 00:39:35,239 So I think it's planetary vindication. I think one problem, it seems to me, 349 00:39:35,240 --> 00:39:41,870 is contemporary national law has human rights as well as self-determination as sort of one of the foundational principles. 350 00:39:42,680 --> 00:39:52,130 And that puts a lot of burden on your notion of a decent state and a mutually just anarchic situation. 351 00:39:52,910 --> 00:40:01,040 And the more empirical that and the more you look around and say there are states that don't meet the human rights side of things. 352 00:40:01,400 --> 00:40:08,740 The more you are, you're getting a story that only justifies Article 51, that doesn't justify references in the charter, for example, to human rights. 353 00:40:09,200 --> 00:40:15,200 So there's and another way that sort of a why does it challenge the argument? 354 00:40:15,430 --> 00:40:20,570 So I'm talking about the interpretation of the law, not not the reality. 355 00:40:20,620 --> 00:40:23,900 But if the law also puts in certain human rights mandates, 356 00:40:24,140 --> 00:40:33,650 it seems to and you end up with an outcome that hits extreme human rights violators are immune to various sorts of intervention, 357 00:40:33,650 --> 00:40:41,180 including military intervention is the last resort. You get a case where potentially you haven't you haven't vindicated the international law. 358 00:40:41,180 --> 00:40:45,620 You've only vindicated Article 51 that Article 51 doesn't stand on its own. 359 00:40:45,620 --> 00:40:51,890 There's other stuff going on as well. So which means that that explanatory project potentially comes under pressure. 360 00:40:52,250 --> 00:40:57,320 Maybe you have a visionary project where we should ditch the human rights parts in favour of the self-determination part. 361 00:40:58,790 --> 00:41:03,480 You know, those are thinking if. Another is an issue of imperial burden. 362 00:41:03,500 --> 00:41:09,230 If it turns out that it's not, it's not symmetrical enough. So some states, in fact, can resort to force with impunity. 363 00:41:10,250 --> 00:41:14,510 Turns out that it's not prior to optimal. After all, is a contract stillborn? 364 00:41:14,810 --> 00:41:22,720 No, it's. Yeah, it's sort of the morally moral state of the conflict that not relatively, 365 00:41:22,990 --> 00:41:28,580 it does not weaken its moral standing, but it may see the conflict suspended. 366 00:41:29,660 --> 00:41:35,020 And regarding the the the human rights issue, what you see, in fact, 367 00:41:35,120 --> 00:41:43,100 that the conflict should allow humanitarian intervention when something like that. 368 00:41:44,270 --> 00:41:55,280 And what I'm saying is that it should allow humanitarian intervention only if a rights violation is going on. 369 00:41:55,610 --> 00:42:09,140 And it is clear in the clarity here is part, I think, of the ethos of of of it's obviously part of the warfare approach to humanitarian intervention. 370 00:42:09,350 --> 00:42:18,620 And it it seems to me also I know I'm a very poor lawyer, but but it seems to be part of the ethos of of international law as you can. 371 00:42:18,740 --> 00:42:23,030 I think one is an issue of the context dependence. 372 00:42:25,520 --> 00:42:30,950 One of the reasons for going to the contract is epistemic burdens on the natural world. 373 00:42:31,950 --> 00:42:35,120 And so we go to the contract beneath the contract. 374 00:42:35,660 --> 00:42:39,010 This is one of the I'm talking about meaningful adjustment. 375 00:42:39,530 --> 00:42:44,120 And this is a very general, very general condition. And they substantiated that. 376 00:42:44,130 --> 00:42:54,410 I give one example, which seems to me pretty relevant because it seems to me so close to our reality that the extent of our ability 377 00:42:54,740 --> 00:43:02,840 to the ability of parties to apply these these permissions is restricted in that part seems plausible. 378 00:43:03,020 --> 00:43:09,350 But if the contract is a binding this of the contract is context dependent and epistemic burdens on 379 00:43:09,410 --> 00:43:15,410 knowing that the context is such that compliance really is quite often all that I should think about it. 380 00:43:15,470 --> 00:43:24,140 Okay, that's good. I have my tendency is to say try to interpret it as widely as possible. 381 00:43:24,430 --> 00:43:33,050 Okay. And it's also related to the right conception of thinking intimacy. 382 00:43:33,090 --> 00:43:41,840 What when would you like to see that the state is respecting or it's bound by it respect the international law, 383 00:43:41,990 --> 00:43:49,440 I would say try to lower the bar as far as you can in order to in order not to benefit from the doubt, 384 00:43:49,880 --> 00:43:58,000 because you should suspect yourself that you are that you are trying to to in advance your your partially. 385 00:43:58,340 --> 00:44:02,290 This is part of your nature of the state going along. 386 00:44:03,170 --> 00:44:06,479 And I should change where we've been. 387 00:44:06,480 --> 00:44:12,350 But this might be well, I mean, the way with contract some time is that you can ask them precisely what you put in 388 00:44:12,560 --> 00:44:18,500 as you specify the conditions in such a way that you get the outcome that want. 389 00:44:19,190 --> 00:44:24,290 And this seems I mean just seems to you on the system hinge in there being precisely the right 390 00:44:24,290 --> 00:44:30,290 number of rules in international system to prompt people to maintain their consent with armies. 391 00:44:30,560 --> 00:44:36,740 But enough about apples that it comes in to give up some of them permissions in certain ways. 392 00:44:37,210 --> 00:44:43,850 And and it has to be just another anarchy and just the thesis, you've just got to say, but not too much. 393 00:44:43,850 --> 00:44:48,710 And again, a few things I say this was corporations, not too much decency that we can use anything stronger. 394 00:44:49,580 --> 00:44:56,960 It's more of an ad hoc rather than an effective of some independent set of criteria. 395 00:45:00,080 --> 00:45:04,430 With that in mind, did you say before that because they're the content of decency and anarchy here? 396 00:45:04,470 --> 00:45:14,390 I mean, the decency claiming to be decent in your statement are using from a specific people's way of making some kind of loser sort of way. 397 00:45:14,390 --> 00:45:19,190 But I've seen if you go to society, believe me, decent and of course they're not ruling out certain kinds of grounds for things. 398 00:45:19,520 --> 00:45:23,239 So it rules out the fact frequently these in the state will have to meet some kind 399 00:45:23,240 --> 00:45:27,400 of basic threshold and then pull out the need for certain kinds of intervention. 400 00:45:27,410 --> 00:45:34,520 Just kind of the way this is framed and the saying the conception only came if the idea is to track international law, 401 00:45:34,760 --> 00:45:40,110 the ideas is that we're in people's minds as they as they kind of founded international law or whatever they do. 402 00:45:40,200 --> 00:45:44,689 One of the things, just in terms of cooperation, we've done a bit from from from what there was. 403 00:45:44,690 --> 00:45:49,790 And so we have a reasonable word about the anarchy component because it seems to the anarchy is no longer, 404 00:45:50,120 --> 00:45:55,040 you know, the I mean, the kind of money can exist now is compatible with all kinds of cooperation. 405 00:45:55,910 --> 00:46:00,650 Sure. Sure. And well, that operation. 406 00:46:01,650 --> 00:46:10,350 That cooperation doesn't exist in violation of international law doesn't mean the law changes to reflect the cooperation of cooperation. 407 00:46:10,440 --> 00:46:17,460 So these these are very big challenges. Theory of distances is is a subject for the book. 408 00:46:18,180 --> 00:46:23,840 When I'm talking about decency, I'm talking about states that respects the right, 409 00:46:23,880 --> 00:46:30,000 that respect the rights of other states and the punishment because they the killing 410 00:46:30,000 --> 00:46:35,819 of their own rights in the way we can interpret their behaviour in terms of rights, 411 00:46:35,820 --> 00:46:42,660 namely they they would use for us you know, to defend the rights they, 412 00:46:42,720 --> 00:46:48,750 they would not say look you don't have the right to exist or you are a heretic or something like that. 413 00:46:50,760 --> 00:47:00,329 And this is a very loose notion. I mean, it might be the case that we should work with these loose notions in order to to to 414 00:47:00,330 --> 00:47:06,440 get the right interpretation of the right moral interpretation of the conflict in. 415 00:47:07,020 --> 00:47:17,030 So they give but the end of the people through trying to to see that there is another it's a suggestion, a very tentative suggestion. 416 00:47:17,490 --> 00:47:25,139 And you can read from state to state to be able to it respect the pluralism that is the basis of the 417 00:47:25,140 --> 00:47:34,500 international law according to rules involved in this is one this is would be my answer to the first challenge. 418 00:47:34,500 --> 00:47:42,840 But but it's a huge issue. The second one is regarding anarchy. 419 00:47:42,850 --> 00:48:00,420 This is anarchy is a case in which it is a situation in which in states cannot trust any transnational institution to defend it. 420 00:48:01,260 --> 00:48:11,250 So once it comes to it, realise that its right is violated, illegally violated. 421 00:48:11,520 --> 00:48:16,800 It cannot appeal to any transnational institution in order to enforce its own rights. 422 00:48:17,220 --> 00:48:25,710 Again, lose. But it seems to me helpfully it's a self-help based regime in terms of defensive rights. 423 00:48:28,170 --> 00:48:37,200 Yup. Go ahead. But this is an idea used to made no reference to the internal composition of these states, but makes it based on the count you have. 424 00:48:37,200 --> 00:48:40,319 Those just have to do with the state. No, no way. You're right. 425 00:48:40,320 --> 00:48:49,990 They didn't. I just. I just mentioned one very helpful confusion, the confusion of international law, since it is very sensitive to to human rights, 426 00:48:49,990 --> 00:48:53,820 to they have to have another in the prong, 427 00:48:54,150 --> 00:49:05,240 which talks about the justice of the state itself more than the extent to which it respects human rights within. 428 00:49:05,610 --> 00:49:09,970 Of course, and this is part of their own film, The Rights Future. 429 00:49:10,000 --> 00:49:14,820 So Victor Tawadros, I think for the paper. 430 00:49:14,940 --> 00:49:20,480 So I don't know what smart contract theory anymore. I thought I have lunch with them. 431 00:49:20,880 --> 00:49:26,700 So let me ask you about as I said, one question is raising doubts is also always good. 432 00:49:27,150 --> 00:49:33,210 Question is why? Why do you think that if you try to, this picture should converge on reality? 433 00:49:33,990 --> 00:49:36,720 So we have the international law set up in a certain way. 434 00:49:36,990 --> 00:49:42,900 And I mean really surprising, wouldn't it, if there was a moral explanation for why it is always is now. 435 00:49:43,650 --> 00:49:47,460 It's a not inequality of power wealth themselves. 436 00:49:47,990 --> 00:49:53,150 And, you know, we actually converged on the moral right that we are shocked by it. 437 00:49:53,280 --> 00:50:00,410 Now, you can expect very, very different reactions. 438 00:50:02,920 --> 00:50:06,990 So I just want to confirm exactly the same conflict. 439 00:50:07,140 --> 00:50:15,740 This is part of the thesis you have. You have to we have to this is part of the moral standing of the conflict is dependent. 440 00:50:15,750 --> 00:50:22,800 This same conflict might be in a slave, a conflict between master than slave. 441 00:50:24,300 --> 00:50:27,480 Think about it. There is only one. 442 00:50:27,930 --> 00:50:31,940 It just calls for war. And we can do everything we want in order to. 443 00:50:32,190 --> 00:50:40,230 To exploit, to exploit. And so it's possible, even until even so, even in perfect conditions we're in at the moment. 444 00:50:40,620 --> 00:50:47,519 You would expect that the comparisons you would be more revisionist than your explanation of it implies, right? 445 00:50:47,520 --> 00:50:53,990 Because we would expect a rule that was quite similar. 446 00:50:54,630 --> 00:50:59,820 But there's no reason to believe that the actual rules that we have will be gradual, more given. 447 00:50:59,970 --> 00:51:05,090 And of course, you should be very surprising if we don't have results, even just one kind of question. 448 00:51:05,130 --> 00:51:12,640 So is just how reductionist we should be. Why shouldn't we have both more kind of game of customer kind of rules to make it more just? 449 00:51:13,050 --> 00:51:16,950 The circumstances is more about the contracts of this kind of story. 450 00:51:16,950 --> 00:51:26,189 So and I always think of this as wanting to appeal to respect for persons or something like that rather than just outcomes for your 451 00:51:26,190 --> 00:51:34,020 version of contractual is it seems like is moving towards just thinking about the outcome of optimal outcomes for the people. 452 00:51:34,390 --> 00:51:38,670 This is Geneva's point then you to just seems open to consequentialist. 453 00:51:38,670 --> 00:51:42,570 You can just say we're aiming as a distribution but as for as optimal. 454 00:51:42,600 --> 00:51:48,540 No, I it doesn't doesn't seem like it's particularly contractual this kind of story so it's going to design the kind of rules you have to try to. 455 00:51:48,540 --> 00:51:55,409 It's like now I want to know more about why respect for persons with respect to self-determining states or 456 00:51:55,410 --> 00:52:01,350 something like that should lead to this set of rules rather than just that they are in fact better for everyone. 457 00:52:02,670 --> 00:52:14,400 Yes. So first of all, I you can take my paper to be a revisionist interpretation of the current system and see, 458 00:52:14,430 --> 00:52:24,089 since I agree fully and I agree with Kasper and Gerhard, then this this this contract is invalid. 459 00:52:24,090 --> 00:52:27,570 It has no moral standing. And we should go there much more. 460 00:52:27,600 --> 00:52:31,050 Just call it for work right now. Okay. 461 00:52:31,230 --> 00:52:44,160 So I'm with you on this, but I just say if you want more interpretation and we take the in the charter and Article 51 to be a kind of progress. 462 00:52:45,720 --> 00:52:50,940 If it is progress, it is progress because it has these the comfort of these feature. 463 00:52:51,420 --> 00:52:56,280 But maybe now because of the massive inequalities, terrorism is justified. 464 00:52:56,850 --> 00:53:02,729 So we ask you wrote it before the customer is in good hands. 465 00:53:02,730 --> 00:53:16,200 The paper, he says, look, we might justify terrorism in order to alert public opinion to the fact that we could just send 20% more medicine, 466 00:53:16,440 --> 00:53:23,160 more medicine to to to the third world, to Africa. And we will be able to save thousands of people. 467 00:53:23,880 --> 00:53:27,180 Okay. So this is an implication of the. 468 00:53:27,260 --> 00:53:32,420 Argument. No, we are talking. 469 00:53:33,290 --> 00:53:37,370 I'm not sure. Look, I'm talking about the international system. 470 00:53:38,900 --> 00:53:45,350 And in states. Oh, it is according to the water rules picture. 471 00:53:45,650 --> 00:53:58,790 States ought to in in create an institutional arrangement that expresses in respect to two persons. 472 00:53:59,480 --> 00:54:03,010 So this is not the job in our division of labour. 473 00:54:03,030 --> 00:54:06,350 This is not the job of the international. The international system. 474 00:54:06,860 --> 00:54:11,660 It's not the job of the. In the rules of war. 475 00:54:14,040 --> 00:54:18,320 To to this is just an account which is open to the consequence of this. 476 00:54:19,340 --> 00:54:21,170 I just wanted to ask, why do you. 477 00:54:21,500 --> 00:54:31,580 Well, I think first and maybe I should mention also that did they say in this paper that that fairness should be part of the. 478 00:54:31,970 --> 00:54:41,690 I don't think French should be part of it. My other role in my other papers all the way, if always, should be fair and mutually beneficial. 479 00:54:43,430 --> 00:54:48,890 Andrew Williams Jeanine, those comments very much. 480 00:54:49,700 --> 00:54:55,970 I think one of the features of that was that she comes to our attention to the fact 481 00:54:56,420 --> 00:55:01,010 that there could be intermediate positions between the two options you look at. 482 00:55:01,370 --> 00:55:09,030 So you look at an account of the grounds for war, which was for all, and an account which is neither. 483 00:55:09,760 --> 00:55:21,510 And then you stay. But the account, the one which gives more crunch, will be offered in terms directly, collectively self-defeating. 484 00:55:22,200 --> 00:55:28,450 We'd all be better off if we'd gotten. By a narrower account. 485 00:55:28,960 --> 00:55:40,210 And then, via Mr. Jimenez comments, she said, Were these two options and not a choice, that could be a further partial. 486 00:55:42,090 --> 00:55:49,950 A specific possibility to mention that I felt there could be some Internet international organisations. 487 00:55:50,580 --> 00:56:02,730 To assess the legitimacy of grants, and you were sceptical that there would be any such organisation that couldn't be present on the same problems. 488 00:56:05,140 --> 00:56:14,560 But I wanted to say separate that specifically from the more general way which she raised, 489 00:56:14,940 --> 00:56:20,700 which is that couldn't there be some of a third or fourth possible? 490 00:56:21,960 --> 00:56:34,270 So then just to pursue that, supposing somebody said, well, you might be right about this organisation kind of arbitrating disputes and suppose. 491 00:56:35,530 --> 00:56:41,550 The international community could reach some agreement. On general causes of war. 492 00:56:43,050 --> 00:56:48,390 They found out that there was a correlation between certain types of regime poverty. 493 00:56:48,840 --> 00:56:56,010 Whatever facts that tell us, a correlate with what you might think. 494 00:56:58,150 --> 00:57:02,380 Why does that count? When people make the types of bets. 495 00:57:03,220 --> 00:57:05,380 Agreements that you have in mind. 496 00:57:06,460 --> 00:57:16,180 You could think of a parallel kind of case, but no, it talks about people not having a right to enforce the law on nature. 497 00:57:16,720 --> 00:57:23,590 Once the dominant protection agency has emerged, he says, it would be very risky for them to do that. 498 00:57:24,160 --> 00:57:27,640 But in return, they get some free protection. 499 00:57:29,160 --> 00:57:33,270 So supposing somebody said our location, the international case. 500 00:57:34,710 --> 00:57:42,900 In return, states not only waive their right to enforce their rights according to broad account of the grounds for war, 501 00:57:43,830 --> 00:57:48,660 they also take on a duty to do something about the causes. 502 00:57:52,340 --> 00:58:01,069 And then now let's say, why should they agree to your contract rather than this other contract which involved not 503 00:58:01,070 --> 00:58:08,090 just the PFA but the acquisition of a duty to do something to reduce the probability of war? 504 00:58:10,160 --> 00:58:16,450 But wouldn't that be such a if you should, you should come up with such an alternative agreement? 505 00:58:16,460 --> 00:58:20,750 I don't think that the international law cannot be improved. 506 00:58:21,200 --> 00:58:35,829 This is not something that they they might imply that if you it should be, you know, it should be the best one that we you are for. 507 00:58:35,830 --> 00:58:46,550 I should weaken this I should weaken this to this. You, my lawyer was all over, all the time to think about how to improve our legal system. 508 00:58:48,170 --> 00:58:58,400 So I totally agree that there might be a bit of the I didn't I didn't argue that there is no it would be foolish to argue that there cannot be. 509 00:58:59,360 --> 00:59:18,500 But this is the best that we could come up with after World War Two is I think it may be maybe I if they claim it, there are other other suggestions. 510 00:59:20,030 --> 00:59:25,310 I didn't find them particularly guilty because I find some faults in it. 511 00:59:25,730 --> 00:59:35,780 But you might come with a bit and undertaking duty without instituting a kind of kind of translational authority. 512 00:59:35,790 --> 00:59:46,140 This might be interesting. This might be, but it is whether we can preserve the partiality of state that we want. 513 00:59:47,760 --> 00:59:57,180 How? So there are many threads and this is the job of these people that work on international law. 514 00:59:57,480 --> 01:00:00,800 This is exactly their job. Okay. 515 01:00:00,810 --> 01:00:05,040 We certainly have to. One thing was, I thought maybe I had frightened everyone to death. 516 01:00:05,070 --> 01:00:08,969 So thank you for being so cooperative. But of course it is okay to have some. 517 01:00:08,970 --> 01:00:15,629 So. Patrick and Guy, one thing is I think the current settlement does have this. 518 01:00:15,630 --> 01:00:22,020 The states have a duty to contribute to the work because it because of its function, among other things, is to reduce the causes of war. 519 01:00:22,170 --> 01:00:32,330 So I think you can very easily embrace that this is, in fact, the agreement that you envision on that front. 520 01:00:32,700 --> 01:00:44,760 But frankly, so much in the way of weakening your claim would be to say that this is the best possible ferretti of a maximal solution. 521 01:00:44,770 --> 01:00:56,520 But you say that this is better than the other one. So it's an improvement to having no compromise or to having the LP to whichever initials. 522 01:00:57,750 --> 01:01:02,490 Yeah. Yeah, it's not usable. 523 01:01:02,680 --> 01:01:09,270 Oh. There were so many times that its the original intention was not clear. 524 01:01:09,570 --> 01:01:13,709 Sometimes known as jazz. Yeah. Okay. 525 01:01:13,710 --> 01:01:18,350 One more. One figure. Is that the reason for the four years before removal? 526 01:01:19,590 --> 01:01:25,730 I don't understand, actually, why the committee wants to mention what this minimum means. 527 01:01:25,740 --> 01:01:32,170 The minimum symmetrical. Meaning why it's minimally just symmetrical. 528 01:01:32,820 --> 01:01:44,700 It should it it is minimal because in it it's just containing some neutrality and some expectation because I 529 01:01:44,700 --> 01:01:53,310 don't I don't expect lots of states in states or parties in the partial partial states in the state of nature. 530 01:01:53,910 --> 01:02:07,920 And I don't expect them to not to believe that their rights, the rights of view, their entitlements were not violated. 531 01:02:08,670 --> 01:02:13,320 The they might well believe that and they might be right. 532 01:02:13,710 --> 01:02:17,700 But have they been told an impartial. 533 01:02:18,420 --> 01:02:25,650 They would they would moral doubtful. And have they been totally impossible having been totally impartial? 534 01:02:25,800 --> 01:02:31,560 They would have been more doubtful. And they wouldn't use force in order to enforce their rights. 535 01:02:31,560 --> 01:02:36,480 They would negotiate, but they wouldn't. You wouldn't use force. 536 01:02:37,800 --> 01:02:46,410 SALAZAR okay. Yes, that was a couple of quick points, if I may. 537 01:02:47,440 --> 01:02:51,450 You talked about the difference between the contracts with position and real consequence with you. 538 01:02:52,200 --> 01:02:58,409 And one of the worries you had about real consequences and reasonable error is what to do in those circumstances 539 01:02:58,410 --> 01:03:05,130 when breaking the rules better serves the values that the rule is supposed to promote and following the rule do. 540 01:03:05,790 --> 01:03:09,240 And so you sort of implied that this is an advantage of the contract with the. 541 01:03:09,560 --> 01:03:15,120 It doesn't have to. Doesn't matter where you go. This is a criticism of the consequence of the rule consequences to come. 542 01:03:15,540 --> 01:03:18,540 And I just wanted to say there's a symmetrical problem for the contract. 543 01:03:18,540 --> 01:03:21,510 So especially with this idea of the hypothetical contract, 544 01:03:22,380 --> 01:03:29,760 which is essentially when the hypothetical contract doesn't work out in my favour, why should I ever get out of a claim? 545 01:03:29,760 --> 01:03:32,770 Is that because of my account? A hypothetical agreement. 546 01:03:32,790 --> 01:03:36,200 And that reminds me of that very kind of talk. 547 01:03:36,210 --> 01:03:43,590 And the hypothetical contract isn't like the paper, it's not really running and telling me, 548 01:03:43,890 --> 01:03:48,450 yeah, so and so, especially when we're talking about matters of life and death. 549 01:03:48,490 --> 01:03:53,260 My wife's, my country matters. So. So you've got you've got symmetrical problems with both approaches. 550 01:03:53,280 --> 01:04:03,750 That's just the first observation. The second observation is specifically about the way you argue about the relationship between the U.S. and NATO, 551 01:04:04,170 --> 01:04:15,510 because one of the things you say is that pretty much any rise that would be attributed to a sovereign in any military, 552 01:04:15,510 --> 01:04:24,960 sort of an organised society in a state of nature would devolve to individuals so individuals could enforce those rights. 553 01:04:25,260 --> 01:04:29,970 And you use this to say that insofar as the sovereign could do this in an organised society, 554 01:04:31,230 --> 01:04:34,380 it would be permissible for ordinary people to do it in physical society. 555 01:04:36,030 --> 01:04:39,870 And I thought that doesn't seem to me extreme right, because, you know, 556 01:04:39,960 --> 01:04:43,890 so the example of punishment should we could say in the states nation you don't have 557 01:04:43,890 --> 01:04:49,620 a right to punish people because of the risk that you're going to do it wrongly, but by using the institution. 558 01:04:49,770 --> 01:04:50,630 You didn't get that right. 559 01:04:50,640 --> 01:05:00,150 So I thought that argumentative move presupposed a particular theory about the relationship, institutional reasons and reasons in the statement. 560 01:05:00,690 --> 01:05:01,950 So I agree. 561 01:05:01,950 --> 01:05:15,090 I didn't I didn't say that the conflict in was not relevant to the problem of it being on the spot violation and it might as a sense of shame, 562 01:05:15,150 --> 01:05:20,820 it might be justified. So this is not the problem with the real consequences of the problem with little consequence of losing. 563 01:05:21,150 --> 01:05:26,580 That is, first of all, you don't know what the rules are. 564 01:05:27,660 --> 01:05:31,290 You can figure out it's very hard to know what they mean. 565 01:05:31,500 --> 01:05:36,820 What are the best rules? And secondly, the time to work out the best contract. 566 01:05:36,840 --> 01:05:44,580 I mean, you know, it seems like pretty much exactly. You know, because this is not the best contract is something that we can. 567 01:05:45,150 --> 01:05:53,430 Because if they imagine if it's not it's not obvious what rule consequentialist want us to 568 01:05:53,430 --> 01:06:02,100 imagine which in which outcome we should imagine ourselves in the Arctic while contracts. 569 01:06:03,030 --> 01:06:06,660 Don't think about your present condition. 570 01:06:06,720 --> 01:06:11,580 What would be the best law? What would be the best law from now on? 571 01:06:12,270 --> 01:06:17,920 And they pick a certain privilege. Ex ante, is that it? 572 01:06:18,240 --> 01:06:21,420 This is much, much easier, I think. In. 573 01:06:22,130 --> 01:06:26,400 In. So. 574 01:06:26,430 --> 01:06:29,490 Okay, what was your point about. 575 01:06:30,210 --> 01:06:40,950 Oh, that's right. I think. I don't. First of all, Mark seems to me as far as I remember moving on from this, as far as I remember, 576 01:06:40,950 --> 01:06:49,979 Locke would say that the sovereign cannot have rights that were not given to him by his subjects. 577 01:06:49,980 --> 01:06:53,190 So this is now people people might disagree with it. 578 01:06:53,200 --> 01:06:59,190 And I, I don't think that my argument depends on the lock in this lock in doctrine, 579 01:06:59,700 --> 01:07:12,720 because what I'm saying is that it is very plausible with respect to many rights that if the sovereign have that in that in a political society, 580 01:07:12,930 --> 01:07:17,249 then individuals might have them in political disorder in a society. 581 01:07:17,250 --> 01:07:19,190 So it's not a universal claim. 582 01:07:19,440 --> 01:07:29,660 It's just it just strengthen the claim that individuals have that if the sovereign is in in a politically organised society. 583 01:07:29,670 --> 01:07:36,540 So I don't I don't commit myself to the locking up from although the looting doctrine is quite popular, 584 01:07:36,750 --> 01:07:43,739 I believe Chris Brooks is actually going to be one finger on this point. 585 01:07:43,740 --> 01:07:52,770 But I guess it continues. If you said sceptically, you wouldn't think that given realities of power that states would converge on an ideal rule. 586 01:07:53,220 --> 01:07:58,440 What one might expect is states to converge on rule of practice in another way, which is in fact what we have. 587 01:07:58,440 --> 01:08:02,460 We have one rule where they draw derogations by we powers. 588 01:08:02,730 --> 01:08:07,469 And I was thinking that that might be something you might want to talk about in the paper, which is that in a way, 589 01:08:07,470 --> 01:08:12,930 the target isn't what is the rule, but what is the practice, what form of state in practice? 590 01:08:12,930 --> 01:08:16,290 What? This goes to the last the last question. 591 01:08:16,530 --> 01:08:21,450 What form what forms of derogation might we want to see in a system? 592 01:08:21,450 --> 01:08:29,520 We probably want the gap between rule and practice to some extent probably don't want because of compounding problems, 593 01:08:29,640 --> 01:08:36,460 institutions to manage that gap, to mine that gap, that should I mean, that I would think that would be the focus of counterterrorism. 594 01:08:36,510 --> 01:08:40,760 Now, what is the more complex practice? Yeah, I am yeah. 595 01:08:41,070 --> 01:08:56,250 All the time in their interest. If I adopted the simplifying assumption that the are LP respecting states the decent states are and and in the Russian 596 01:08:56,250 --> 01:09:11,080 law of peoples there is a clause that the two nations respect the agreement to which the subjective themselves is. 597 01:09:11,880 --> 01:09:14,400 But this is something that should be weakened. I agree. 598 01:09:15,180 --> 01:09:21,780 This is something that should be weakened in in even more realistic analysis of the conflicts of interest. 599 01:09:21,780 --> 01:09:25,450 And that's what. Yes. 600 01:09:26,020 --> 01:09:35,200 I'm Sean Richmond. I'm the Dphil student here at Oxford. Thank you for an interesting paper and come to this paper and the others early this 601 01:09:35,200 --> 01:09:39,090 morning from an international relations and an international law perspective. 602 01:09:39,170 --> 01:09:45,910 So I'm trying my best to come to speed with the alien experiments. 603 01:09:45,940 --> 01:09:54,430 And and in this thinking, the lawyers. The minor differences between certain types of rights and the like. 604 01:09:54,700 --> 01:10:00,820 And I guess my question to you is, what are you seeking to ask and what are you seeking to prove? 605 01:10:01,300 --> 01:10:07,510 And you articulated as wide as international law, find just cause for war so narrowly. 606 01:10:07,520 --> 01:10:10,720 While natural law defines causes so broadly. 607 01:10:10,990 --> 01:10:16,059 Your thesis is that the draughters imagine a world that was, I think in your words, 608 01:10:16,060 --> 01:10:21,130 minimally justified interval and our community just thinking about symmetry. 609 01:10:21,430 --> 01:10:27,520 And I think you Nina, you're quoting me now use good conflict quote from the people I'm quoting you now. 610 01:10:27,860 --> 01:10:34,059 Yes, yes. In response to you, Nina. And also, as the point was raised over here about state practice, 611 01:10:34,060 --> 01:10:40,219 perhaps I wanted to suggest that if you're only seeking to answer a philosophical question, 612 01:10:40,220 --> 01:10:49,450 then comparing roles in and ones like Walter's theories with the, you know, the terms of the treaty, Article 51 has has a lot of purchase. 613 01:10:50,290 --> 01:10:58,330 If you're seeking to demonstrate more of this as a historical case or in terms of the legal standpoint, 614 01:10:58,660 --> 01:11:06,700 then you do need to get a bit more complicated that right after World War Two, Article 51 was articulated a certain way. 615 01:11:06,700 --> 01:11:14,650 But there's a drafting history for that. And certain states thought some things and some of those views were actually quite social, 616 01:11:15,070 --> 01:11:18,550 you know, international society type visions, and some were a lot more minimal. 617 01:11:18,970 --> 01:11:25,420 If you want to just focus on custom and the law on self-defence exist both in the charter and in custom. 618 01:11:25,630 --> 01:11:28,390 And you are going to want to look at the state practice. 619 01:11:28,600 --> 01:11:36,219 And for instance, the U.S. and Israel has conducted a lot more military interventions and argue that they had legal rights to do so, 620 01:11:36,220 --> 01:11:44,340 protection of nationals, that the expansion that you're entitled to and I don't I don't want to isolate you per say, 621 01:11:44,350 --> 01:11:50,590 because I also think I would I would argue that the papers, as I read them up till now, 622 01:11:52,210 --> 01:12:02,530 could sometimes do a better job of giving a background to a non philosophical professor about why this matters and the scope of one's claims. 623 01:12:02,530 --> 01:12:10,240 Because if if we seek to make it more than just, you know, some territorial philosophical point between five experts, 624 01:12:10,960 --> 01:12:16,450 then thank you, then, then some of these other issues can be addressed. 625 01:12:16,700 --> 01:12:19,089 And I'm not trying to say that your work there are legal experts. 626 01:12:19,090 --> 01:12:22,630 You can do the question, you know, maybe in a better way or historians, they can do it better. 627 01:12:22,900 --> 01:12:27,610 But if it if you seek to have more purchase on the thesis, then I think those are some issues. 628 01:12:27,650 --> 01:12:36,300 I think that's a big you know, I humbly accept the cookie arena and show it is not. 629 01:12:36,430 --> 01:12:40,100 But I might collaborate with the law professor on this issue. 630 01:12:42,190 --> 01:12:46,630 More questions. Okay. 631 01:12:46,900 --> 01:12:56,350 We can get a little longer break than scheduled, but the deal is we really will start at 345.