1
00:00:01,920 --> 00:00:08,250
We'll have a brief summary of the paper by its author, Patrick Emerton.

2
00:00:09,990 --> 00:00:12,810
So to say this is actually a co-authored paper.

3
00:00:12,930 --> 00:00:24,120
So with my own Monash colleague Toby Hadfield, I hope the paper is clear enough in its overall purposes.

4
00:00:24,750 --> 00:00:33,270
What we're trying to do is look at how various possible positions in relation to just war, and particularly not exclusively.

5
00:00:33,270 --> 00:00:39,120
As you said, Belgium can be seen as being sort of grounded in deeper conceptions of political morality.

6
00:00:40,380 --> 00:00:45,090
In the first section, we distinguish three different types of defence of war.

7
00:00:45,090 --> 00:00:51,300
So defence against genocide, homelands, defence, which we characterise as defence against expulsion.

8
00:00:51,450 --> 00:00:54,840
The problem should also, I think, be extended to include defence against enslavement.

9
00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:59,430
And then what we regard as more problematic category of political defence,

10
00:00:59,700 --> 00:01:05,970
which is we defence of a political control over a particular population or particular territory.

11
00:01:06,720 --> 00:01:09,140
We then go on to consider taking it.

12
00:01:09,150 --> 00:01:16,860
The ordinary principles of individual self-defence would justify wars in defence against genocide or wars in homeland defence.

13
00:01:16,950 --> 00:01:21,479
We then go on to consider what would be needed to justify wars and political

14
00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:26,760
defences of characterised it and talk a bit about what that would require.

15
00:01:26,970 --> 00:01:36,930
And to summarise it, what we think is key is what sort of values can be said to be being defended in the context of political defence,

16
00:01:37,170 --> 00:01:47,310
such that it's justified to create the engagements and exposing many people to potentially lethal harm in the cause of political defence.

17
00:01:48,570 --> 00:01:55,500
And we argue that a sort of position which we characterise broadly, but I hope intuitively, plausibly has liberal cosmopolitanism,

18
00:01:55,890 --> 00:02:04,020
is going to have a lot of trouble identifying any state other than a liberal state as enjoying the privilege of political defence.

19
00:02:05,730 --> 00:02:17,760
In the second section of the paper, we going to try to bring out some sort of further features of the liberal cosmopolitan approach to just war.

20
00:02:18,870 --> 00:02:24,719
We argue we have a legal date or through Jim that I want to summarise now.

21
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:33,060
But in another paper, Toby and I have argued that moral equality of combatants can be defended through certain arguments,

22
00:02:33,060 --> 00:02:36,260
and we argue that liberal cosmopolitans won't have that available to them.

23
00:02:36,270 --> 00:02:43,409
So in a sense, I guess unsurprisingly, particularly for members of this audience, they end up being committed to sort of non traditional,

24
00:02:43,410 --> 00:02:51,870
although apparently now orthodox symmetry in relation to this in Bella on on you said bellum.

25
00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:59,160
We argue that the liberal cosmopolitans are going to have an asymmetric account there.

26
00:02:59,550 --> 00:03:08,340
And again, it might not be surprising that Liberal cosmopolitans will be sceptical of neo liberal states having a political defence of privilege,

27
00:03:09,090 --> 00:03:12,630
that we try to bring out some features of that that are perhaps not entirely obvious.

28
00:03:13,170 --> 00:03:20,250
In particular, the, we think certain features of the universalism to characterise as Liberal cosmopolitanism

29
00:03:20,730 --> 00:03:25,500
will lead to liberal cosmopolitans having quite a low threshold for defence of others,

30
00:03:25,710 --> 00:03:31,920
which then is likely to license sort of a broader range of interventions than certainly tradition would permit,

31
00:03:31,920 --> 00:03:35,130
and perhaps also that intuition might seem to permit.

32
00:03:35,430 --> 00:03:43,469
And we also argue that because national self-determination movements for various both sort of a sort

33
00:03:43,470 --> 00:03:49,120
of a merely empirical but also perhaps somewhat deeper reasons are likely to be non-liberal liberal.

34
00:03:49,230 --> 00:03:53,490
Cosmopolitans are also likely to have an adverse view of national self-determination

35
00:03:53,490 --> 00:03:57,479
and indeed perhaps slightly odd view that it would be better to first

36
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:06,060
subject peoples to wait for a liberal state to intervene on their behalf than to act in their own national self-determination through nonlinear means.

37
00:04:07,710 --> 00:04:14,820
In the third section of the paper, we consider sort of some alternative accounts of political morality.

38
00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:22,800
Unlike itself yesterday, we think that there are interesting differences between Walser's account and rules account,

39
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:31,230
and we try to bring some of them out and we think that A rolls through his account of international public reason is able to give a plausible,

40
00:04:31,900 --> 00:04:37,350
a tenable story about what value might be set up against individual involvement of inviolability

41
00:04:37,770 --> 00:04:43,050
to then permit a privileged political defence to arise at least some non-liberal states.

42
00:04:43,740 --> 00:04:46,590
But we argue they'll still be some sort of limitations there.

43
00:04:46,590 --> 00:04:52,649
So you still get something quite non-traditional out of rolls and you're really going to, we say, have to go to quite a romantic story,

44
00:04:52,650 --> 00:04:59,790
a romantic national story to get anything like sort of traditional common sense in the conclusion of.

45
00:04:59,840 --> 00:05:07,159
Then at the last section we go on to ask, having looked at these various pictures,

46
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:12,360
is the value that these various accounts of political morality can affirm the mod warrant.

47
00:05:12,380 --> 00:05:20,270
Political I'm a political self-defence really valuable enough to license widespread killing.

48
00:05:21,350 --> 00:05:28,129
And we think if your ends of the honourable position your commitment to national self-determination and that value would really

49
00:05:28,130 --> 00:05:37,130
have to be very romantic perhaps in the light of 20th century history and plausibly romantic to think that that's justified.

50
00:05:37,130 --> 00:05:42,500
Which means if any of that was so, then you'd be at least a type of limited pacifist.

51
00:05:42,500 --> 00:05:47,300
Accepting the war is justified only in respect of defence against genocide or homeland defence.

52
00:05:47,990 --> 00:05:52,280
And we say that liberal cosmopolitans, because of the great value they place on individual inviolability,

53
00:05:52,670 --> 00:05:58,810
are probably compelled towards that sort of limited pacifism, which again is a sort of a,

54
00:05:58,850 --> 00:06:06,169
we think in kind of an interesting and non-intuitive result that I think a lot of the we feel that a lot of the

55
00:06:06,170 --> 00:06:12,229
contemporary approaches in just war so tend to accept that Liberal states will still have a fairly robust privilege,

56
00:06:12,230 --> 00:06:16,830
privileged political defence, but we think that's probably doubtful. So that's the summary group.

57
00:06:17,510 --> 00:06:21,530
COMMENTATOR is James Patterson from Manchester. Okay, great.

58
00:06:22,130 --> 00:06:30,170
Now before I start, I say I'm up on you Patrick's article in PPA, but I thought, well, I'd Google them and see what came up.

59
00:06:30,170 --> 00:06:36,140
And I think number three was a Patrick Hamilton Appreciation Society on Facebook.

60
00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:42,230
I knew that I was going to have a very tough gig when when the leading leading line is.

61
00:06:42,380 --> 00:06:55,580
The man's a genius. But you're right, which is that's actually written by equity in a law lecture.

62
00:06:55,580 --> 00:07:00,740
Another philosophy lecturer that's actually read about you as an equity in trusts is in a very different tonight.

63
00:07:02,870 --> 00:07:06,889
Okay. Let me I'll give a very brief summary.

64
00:07:06,890 --> 00:07:08,420
As I understand Patrick and Tobi,

65
00:07:08,690 --> 00:07:17,720
I'll try and cover all the bits that Patrick just went over so Patrick can tie the concern with what I call the privilege of political defence.

66
00:07:18,050 --> 00:07:27,470
Now, this fits this privilege has two features endangerment, where our state may justifiably endanger its own citizens in its defence and force,

67
00:07:27,770 --> 00:07:34,280
where the importance of a political organisation licenses the use of force and thus the exposure of its own citizens and opponents,

68
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:40,639
citizens potentially lethal harm. Now, most of the paper, as Patrick suggested,

69
00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:45,290
is concerned with considering which particular states possess this political defensive

70
00:07:45,290 --> 00:07:49,430
privilege and also outlining different conceptions and requirements of this privilege,

71
00:07:49,670 --> 00:07:53,870
and particularly the requirement of normative integration between the government and citizens.

72
00:07:54,650 --> 00:07:58,100
Now, Patrick and Toby claim on the one hand, that a liberal, cosmopolitan,

73
00:07:58,370 --> 00:08:05,810
liberal cosmopolitan position and liberal state may enjoy this privilege, because in the case of endangerment, of commitments,

74
00:08:05,850 --> 00:08:11,150
individual autonomy and its ability to articulate its decision to go to war in terms of public reason,

75
00:08:11,660 --> 00:08:16,100
and because in the case of force and liberal state is the realisation of individual autonomy

76
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:20,750
and potentially the kind of hence was the idea of individuals political self-determination.

77
00:08:22,250 --> 00:08:28,550
On the other hand, they argue that liberal cosmopolitan says very high cosmopolitanism sets a very high threshold for normative integration,

78
00:08:28,820 --> 00:08:33,170
which means that non-liberal states don't possess the political defensive privilege.

79
00:08:34,370 --> 00:08:37,339
And so, as Patrick says, that they think that liberal,

80
00:08:37,340 --> 00:08:43,550
cosmopolitan cosmopolitanism presents a widespread license for a range of humanitarian interventions.

81
00:08:44,300 --> 00:08:45,260
Now, in addition,

82
00:08:45,260 --> 00:08:54,499
they claim that liberal cosmopolitans can't explain why any particular Liberal government has a political defence of privilege without

83
00:08:54,500 --> 00:09:02,620
also citing the voluntary associations may possess the political defensive privilege or endorsing an ancient liberal appeal to security.

84
00:09:02,930 --> 00:09:04,520
And this means that states enjoy, at best,

85
00:09:04,730 --> 00:09:11,120
a privilege to defend themselves from challenges to non-liberal state forms of government, but not against other liberal states.

86
00:09:12,590 --> 00:09:18,740
Okay, so that's how I understand the paper now. For the most part, they seem to be concerned with liberal liberal imperialism.

87
00:09:19,040 --> 00:09:24,290
And so they suggest at one point that the liberal cosmopolitan view seems like this give rise to the danger of excessive

88
00:09:24,290 --> 00:09:29,900
intervention both by liberal states and against other liberal states and by any state against more liberal states.

89
00:09:29,930 --> 00:09:35,540
In page 26. Now, in my discussion, I want to present some arguments against this view.

90
00:09:36,180 --> 00:09:42,620
I'm not going to argue that liberal cosmopolitanism may be far less, far less interventionist than Patrick and Toby imply.

91
00:09:45,580 --> 00:09:52,510
So Milwaukee, first, as a matter of principle, I think morality of war, liberal cosmopolitans may be less prone to vention.

92
00:09:53,080 --> 00:10:01,870
But before I think so, I think it's worth noting that the fact that liberal cosmopolitans might seem to deny non-liberal states

93
00:10:01,870 --> 00:10:09,030
a right of political defence against intervention from liberal states shouldn't seem to be surprising.

94
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:12,400
So liberal states deny the legitimacy of non-liberal states.

95
00:10:12,700 --> 00:10:17,499
States that lack legitimacy in the deep morality of or at least may be subject to intervention.

96
00:10:17,500 --> 00:10:22,840
So it seems to me it's almost self evident, almost perhaps tautological that for liberal cosmopolitans,

97
00:10:23,050 --> 00:10:29,470
non-liberal states don't possess a just cause to use force to protect their non-liberal states from intervention by people states.

98
00:10:29,530 --> 00:10:38,349
Okay. Notwithstanding that point, let me not present five reasons why a liberal cosmopolitan might not be keen to advocate intervention.

99
00:10:38,350 --> 00:10:42,400
Five more principled reasons so of so more deeper reasons.

100
00:10:44,020 --> 00:10:50,980
Plus, Patrick can take you suggest that liberal cosmopolitans may prefer intervention to a liberal state by legal states,

101
00:10:51,040 --> 00:10:58,090
the national liberation of a self-determination movement. This is because, they argue the majority of self-determination movements are not liberal,

102
00:10:58,300 --> 00:11:02,410
since they lack the political opportunity and resources to establish themselves in a liberal basis.

103
00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:09,640
However, I think that this misses the point that liberal cosmopolitans could have a forward looking account of national self-determination movements.

104
00:11:10,270 --> 00:11:14,620
Well, the legitimacy of a movement depends on whether it's reasonably expect it to form a Liberal

105
00:11:14,620 --> 00:11:18,730
government and not whether it's Liberal now and if it's likely to form a Liberal government.

106
00:11:19,300 --> 00:11:27,400
Liberal cosmopolitans, I think, wouldn't necessarily endorse intervention instead of a self-determination movement, because that's the first one.

107
00:11:28,690 --> 00:11:34,089
Second, as I said, Patrick and Toby suggest that a liberal cosmopolitan can't explain why a particular

108
00:11:34,090 --> 00:11:37,719
set of liberal political arrangements can't be defended against any alternative.

109
00:11:37,720 --> 00:11:44,890
And this means that they think the liberal states are immune to attack by other liberal states wanting to depose another Liberal government.

110
00:11:44,930 --> 00:11:48,010
So I think that it's a footnote that draws on Symonds.

111
00:11:49,180 --> 00:11:55,629
Now, I think that a plausible explanation can be offered as to why liberal cosmopolitanism might not be willing to sanction

112
00:11:55,630 --> 00:12:04,630
such intervention in a liberal democracy that citizens participate in their elections for their particular government.

113
00:12:04,930 --> 00:12:11,350
So any alternative in government imposed by a third party wouldn't be elected by the people, and so it lacked legitimacy.

114
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:17,380
In other words, citizens and liberal democracy seemed to me to be tied to that particular government because they voted for it,

115
00:12:17,620 --> 00:12:22,780
and changing that government without their consent, in effect, would discard the results of the ballot boxes.

116
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:25,960
And so this connection to a of the government, to its citizens,

117
00:12:26,230 --> 00:12:33,010
seems to present a reason why you might think that liberal states have a defensive privilege against other liberal states.

118
00:12:34,300 --> 00:12:37,650
Okay, thirdly, a fairly straightforward point.

119
00:12:37,660 --> 00:12:41,500
If a liberal cosmopolitan holds that there's a difference between doing, allow, doing and allowing,

120
00:12:41,710 --> 00:12:48,160
there might be far less willing to endorse intervention in general, and especially when what is being allowed is egregious.

121
00:12:48,580 --> 00:12:55,030
So such as in cases where a state lacks political defence, a political defensive privilege, but isn't engaged in mass killing.

122
00:12:56,470 --> 00:13:01,330
Fourthly, it's common in a liberal cosmopolitan literature to defend the principle of external

123
00:13:01,330 --> 00:13:08,110
support and put generally those subject to the intervention need to be need to welcome it.

124
00:13:08,110 --> 00:13:09,459
So they need to endorse it somehow.

125
00:13:09,460 --> 00:13:18,250
So this might take the form of an opinion polls and the victims or potentially burdened bystanders or more indirectly,

126
00:13:18,250 --> 00:13:22,120
the use of secondary sources or indicators of the citizens opinions.

127
00:13:22,660 --> 00:13:26,050
For instance, by reliable intermediaries like supply,

128
00:13:26,060 --> 00:13:32,180
might this kind of consent principle or some sort of external support either might be important in a liberal cosmopolitan position?

129
00:13:32,980 --> 00:13:38,260
Well, most obviously intervention might be harmful to those subject to it.

130
00:13:38,830 --> 00:13:44,620
So those who are culpable for the situation but may have to take on its burdens should have some input,

131
00:13:45,010 --> 00:13:48,880
although perhaps not a veto about whether the intervention actually occurs,

132
00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:54,970
i.e. because whether they are actually going to accept the risk of these burdens being placed on them.

133
00:13:56,110 --> 00:14:00,100
In addition, it seems important as a matter of individual political self-determination,

134
00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:04,980
the kind of value that Patrick and Toby appeal to, that those subjects,

135
00:14:04,990 --> 00:14:13,060
the intervention, have some say about any changes to their government, even if the current government is illegitimate according to Liberal standards.

136
00:14:13,210 --> 00:14:18,820
If an intervener unilaterally imposes a new government without consulting the individuals that be subject to this government,

137
00:14:19,180 --> 00:14:25,150
it may seem to reduce further the small amount of individual self-government that currently exists.

138
00:14:25,840 --> 00:14:32,830
So my point then is a liberal cosmopolitan mind or some sort of consent principle, and this further reduce any interventionist tendencies.

139
00:14:34,440 --> 00:14:37,650
Okay. The fifth point concerns intervention by non-liberal states.

140
00:14:38,340 --> 00:14:42,210
Patrick and Toby claim that on a liberal cosmopolitan view,

141
00:14:43,050 --> 00:14:48,170
liberal states composites the political defensive privilege against other non-liberal states.

142
00:14:48,180 --> 00:14:53,190
And so in the papers, they cite the case of Iraq and Kuwait.

143
00:14:53,970 --> 00:14:58,530
And they suggest that that's the case where neither side possessed a political defensive privilege.

144
00:15:00,210 --> 00:15:08,370
Now, on the contrary, it seems to me that although it might affect the permissibility permissibility of liberal intervention,

145
00:15:09,510 --> 00:15:15,540
I think a liberal cosmopolitan could in principle endorse a non-liberal state's defensive privileges

146
00:15:15,780 --> 00:15:20,640
in the case of the forcible change of government to an even the more non liberal government.

147
00:15:34,320 --> 00:15:42,570
So I think that a liberal cosmopolitan could defend the defensive privileges in the case of an even changes to an even more non Liberal government.

148
00:15:42,900 --> 00:15:47,460
And I think Kasper kind of raised a similar point in one of the cases.

149
00:15:47,760 --> 00:15:50,640
It raised a similar point in one of its questions earlier yesterday.

150
00:15:50,940 --> 00:15:59,639
So although a non-liberal state may not enjoy a fully fledged defence of privilege that justifies endangerment and force against liberal states,

151
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:04,050
they might possess a limited political defensive privilege against a non-liberal aggressor.

152
00:16:05,220 --> 00:16:10,440
And so this would be the case. Defending the action would be comparatively worse in terms of individual autonomy,

153
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:17,040
which is the value that Patrick and Toby appeal to, to explain why liberal states possess a political defensive right.

154
00:16:17,430 --> 00:16:23,549
So Kuwait might enjoy a limited political defensive privilege against a successful

155
00:16:23,550 --> 00:16:30,510
intervention by Iraq because ruled by Saddam's tyranny would be to be even worse individual,

156
00:16:30,630 --> 00:16:34,140
individual autonomy than under the Kuwaiti constitutional monarchy.

157
00:16:35,010 --> 00:16:44,940
So, for instance, the I found out I found out this from the great Wikipedia that magically Aloma, which is the National Assembly of Kuwait,

158
00:16:44,940 --> 00:16:50,040
may be abolished and that as a result, there may be an even lower degree of political self-determination in Kuwait.

159
00:16:51,190 --> 00:16:54,750
Okay, so this might justify something approaching endangerment.

160
00:16:55,950 --> 00:17:01,350
However, this limited defensive privilege, I think, might not fully justify the full principles of endangerment and force.

161
00:17:01,530 --> 00:17:09,210
It might not permit substantial costs being borne by the Kuwaiti civilians in defence of their a bit less non-liberal state,

162
00:17:10,320 --> 00:17:14,970
but it might still permit resort to force and potentially some sort of embellished privileges as well.

163
00:17:15,990 --> 00:17:21,050
Okay. So those are kind of five more deeper reasons, as I call them, in the written version of the paper.

164
00:17:21,180 --> 00:17:21,790
This response.

165
00:17:23,970 --> 00:17:29,820
I'm going to briefly I'll say something about two kind of fairly obvious, but more pragmatic arguments I think should just be flagged up.

166
00:17:29,820 --> 00:17:36,090
So Patrick and Toby suggest a couple of points that the personality constraint will prohibit the use of force.

167
00:17:36,090 --> 00:17:43,200
But I think they generally downplay the importance of this concern as a constraint on liberal interventionism in the light of Iraq and Afghanistan.

168
00:17:43,230 --> 00:17:46,650
We all know now that changes in governments,

169
00:17:46,650 --> 00:17:54,299
possible changes in government are very unlikely to succeed and in very few limited circumstances because simply that unlikely to be successful.

170
00:17:54,300 --> 00:17:57,860
And I think in practice this is going to be a notable constraint.

171
00:17:57,870 --> 00:18:04,290
It's going to pull our intuitions why we might think the intervention isn't isn't justifiable.

172
00:18:04,950 --> 00:18:11,849
Secondly, I think it's worth reiterating that. The deep morality of war is only one part.

173
00:18:11,850 --> 00:18:13,499
It's an important part of the morality of war,

174
00:18:13,500 --> 00:18:19,200
but it's only one part of a fully fledged account of the morality of war and a fully fledged liberal cosmopolitan position.

175
00:18:19,440 --> 00:18:22,860
We need to take you need to take into account more pragmatic concerns.

176
00:18:23,460 --> 00:18:30,660
So liberal cosmopolitans might might endorse a highly limited political defence of privilege as a matter of the deep morality of war.

177
00:18:31,230 --> 00:18:36,780
But I think they could also present a real consequentialist justification for maintaining a much higher threshold.

178
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:47,610
And such an argument might run as follows Given the costs of intervention in general, both in terms of lives and resources.

179
00:18:47,820 --> 00:18:53,850
There needs to be a high bar for intervention to be justified in order for there is a sufficient room for it to be proportionate.

180
00:18:54,480 --> 00:18:58,170
And this might be through a restriction on the use of military force two occasions where there is a

181
00:18:58,170 --> 00:19:04,440
qualitatively and quantitatively significant amount of good that can be achieved to outweigh any potential harm.

182
00:19:05,640 --> 00:19:10,530
And this might lead to saying that somebody's life is only in cases of mass violation of basic human rights.

183
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:15,600
The intervention could potentially have just cause. Moreover,

184
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:21,360
you might think that maintaining a role where you can intervene in cases of where the political

185
00:19:21,360 --> 00:19:28,050
defensive privilege is lacking is very much open to abuse in in reality by powerful intervening states.

186
00:19:28,410 --> 00:19:32,550
And so you need a higher bar to reduce any possibilities of abuse.

187
00:19:33,970 --> 00:19:39,310
Now, this kind of kind of real consequences thinking, I think, has a further implication for Patrick and Toby's argument.

188
00:19:39,940 --> 00:19:46,030
They suggest that the rules of intervention in international law based on the non-liberal value of national self-determination.

189
00:19:46,720 --> 00:19:51,340
However, I think that a credible case could be made for the view of extension of a political

190
00:19:51,340 --> 00:19:55,090
defence of privilege and potentially other sovereign rights in international law.

191
00:19:56,530 --> 00:20:02,080
It's quite a lot of states, and based on the liberal cosmopolitan role consequentialist vision.

192
00:20:02,710 --> 00:20:06,010
So maintaining rules that generally protect states places with defensive

193
00:20:06,010 --> 00:20:11,500
privileges might be the currently optimal way of protecting individuals rights,

194
00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:14,320
given the risks of abuse by a more permissive environment.

195
00:20:15,790 --> 00:20:21,069
Okay, so I'm not convinced and that liberal Cosmopolitan isn't necessarily that interventionist both in the deep,

196
00:20:21,070 --> 00:20:25,090
moralistic, almost practically and, well, Germany.

197
00:20:25,090 --> 00:20:31,420
I think we should be careful of criticising or endorsing a a position for why it seems to sanction in a deep morality of war,

198
00:20:31,750 --> 00:20:36,070
practical moral considerations, whether they concern the roles played by institutions,

199
00:20:36,370 --> 00:20:39,790
epistemic difficulties, a likelihood of compliance in the abuse, I think,

200
00:20:39,790 --> 00:20:45,100
will often change the conclusions fairly radically and which perhaps tends to be a bit more upfront about this.

201
00:20:45,820 --> 00:20:49,480
Okay. So I have a lengthy, overly lengthy discussion.

202
00:20:51,090 --> 00:20:57,340
Yes. So the Janes are generously forwarded me his comments a couple of days ago.

203
00:20:57,430 --> 00:21:03,640
So that might have a few notes on on the point about obviousness.

204
00:21:03,850 --> 00:21:11,739
In a sense the true although I think some some features of what we try to bring out aren't always immediately obvious,

205
00:21:11,740 --> 00:21:17,240
particularly the implications for national self-determination movements, the data,

206
00:21:17,530 --> 00:21:22,720
our argument about the limitations on liberal states defending themselves against other liberal states.

207
00:21:23,050 --> 00:21:29,410
So we think there is some stuff that is not entirely obvious. But, you know, we're moving on sort of to the five points.

208
00:21:29,710 --> 00:21:35,650
The the final point about the Iraq Kuwait example and the idea that sort of

209
00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:40,210
the slightly inadequate could defend itself against the radical inadequate.

210
00:21:40,510 --> 00:21:46,180
Sounds plausible. On the third point about doing and allowing.

211
00:21:47,710 --> 00:21:51,430
I don't want to think about that a bit more, but sort of on the face of it, that kind of sounds plausible.

212
00:21:52,990 --> 00:22:00,280
Picking up the other three points and the point about being forward looking in relation to national self-determination movements,

213
00:22:01,270 --> 00:22:04,480
I still don't think that's going to get you very far. I mean,

214
00:22:05,980 --> 00:22:15,219
just sort of when I kind of trawl through my own sort of limited historical knowledge in India and the United

215
00:22:15,220 --> 00:22:20,830
States are two reasonably clear examples of national self-determination resulting in a liberal state.

216
00:22:21,910 --> 00:22:23,560
It's hard to think of a great many others.

217
00:22:24,070 --> 00:22:30,459
So the forward looking requirement for statehood, so looking at movements which are sort of currently still in action,

218
00:22:30,460 --> 00:22:35,620
just recently squashed in always going to be controversial or the real examples that the LTTE,

219
00:22:35,800 --> 00:22:43,750
PKK, PLO would have seemed to be justified even if we look forward and it doesn't no great prospects there an adequate liberal statehood.

220
00:22:43,750 --> 00:22:48,520
I think historically the movements in south eastern Europe against Turkey and

221
00:22:48,520 --> 00:22:53,799
against Austria-Hungary after Hungarian empire good at African decolonisation.

222
00:22:53,800 --> 00:23:00,070
And even if you say the poster child for something like we're not decolonisation for self-determination in Africa,

223
00:23:00,070 --> 00:23:04,640
as the ANC has really struggled to achieve anything like radical liberal state.

224
00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:11,800
So I thinking even forward looking this I don't think is really going to address the issue of those issues about political

225
00:23:11,800 --> 00:23:18,280
capacity to establish liberal institutions don't only apply when you're sort of fighting at the kind of guerrilla stage,

226
00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:24,940
but history since they really carry through for all sorts of kind of deep reasons about those situations.

227
00:23:25,780 --> 00:23:29,590
And the second point about voting.

228
00:23:32,130 --> 00:23:37,320
The argument in the paper he, I'll happily concede would benefit from development.

229
00:23:37,620 --> 00:23:44,819
But there's at least a sketch of a response there, which is that we sort of try to fork the liberal cosmopolitan,

230
00:23:44,820 --> 00:23:51,180
that if they appeal to choice or something in the neighbourhood of or metaphorically the choice of which I think would say voting as an instance.

231
00:23:52,080 --> 00:23:59,580
It becomes quite challenging in our view for the Liberal Cosmopolitan to explain why other sorts of identity, realising autonomy,

232
00:23:59,580 --> 00:24:08,880
affirming voluntary organisations that also inherit the privilege of political defence, which seems like a kind of a pretty strange conclusion.

233
00:24:09,810 --> 00:24:17,550
But if you try to look for some concern on sort of the value of political association, of purely political associations,

234
00:24:18,090 --> 00:24:28,290
then the door sides appears to be open for the proponents of a more sort of a collectivist or nationalist approach to appeal to that same value

235
00:24:28,290 --> 00:24:35,940
without having consideration to extend the privilege of political self-defence and said that value in opposition to individual autonomy.

236
00:24:36,390 --> 00:24:42,450
So it's I think the voting idea is sort of is vulnerable to that fork.

237
00:24:44,490 --> 00:24:51,540
And your fourth comment was about the sort of popular input, perhaps not full fledged popular veto.

238
00:24:53,920 --> 00:25:03,719
A couple of I think it's an interesting point and I think what going have had a few sort of responses to that in first at

239
00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:11,670
least plausibly that rests upon some principle of collective political agency and the value of collective political agency,

240
00:25:12,090 --> 00:25:16,980
which again is problematic for Cosmopolitan, sort of for the reasons I've just been giving.

241
00:25:19,710 --> 00:25:24,300
There are practical issues, for example, if the burdens fall on one part of a population,

242
00:25:24,300 --> 00:25:28,950
but the benefits on another side as opposed to intervention to defend an oppressed minority,

243
00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:35,520
the issue of who gets polled and how and so on, I think actually is likely to be really quite challenging.

244
00:25:35,550 --> 00:25:39,990
Meaning in general, the issue of relations between any subset of a population and its governance

245
00:25:39,990 --> 00:25:43,470
legitimacy can be problematic even in a sort of a liberal democratic state,

246
00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:47,850
in the sorts of situations where intervention is going on insofar as interventions lost.

247
00:25:47,850 --> 00:25:50,280
And so I think that's likely to be highly problematic because that's probably

248
00:25:50,280 --> 00:25:53,310
what generated the permissibility of the intervention in the first place.

249
00:25:54,270 --> 00:26:00,300
And also this whole notion of popular input, of popular veto articulates some new criterion for political legitimacy,

250
00:26:00,690 --> 00:26:03,720
which the implications of which are actually potentially quite radical.

251
00:26:04,200 --> 00:26:09,569
For example, in Westminster, systems of government, of which obviously this country has one, in Australia has one,

252
00:26:09,570 --> 00:26:13,350
the government can be changed without popular input through vote in the floor of the Parliament.

253
00:26:13,860 --> 00:26:20,490
In the United States, the Constitution can be changed to a popular input through a vote in Congress in state legislatures.

254
00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:27,750
So we kind of accept a whole lot of present regimes with even quite radical changes in forms of government can be legitimate without popular input.

255
00:26:28,110 --> 00:26:35,790
And if suddenly, in the case of certain interventions, we've set up this kind of referendum criterion for legitimacy.

256
00:26:36,540 --> 00:26:41,790
Interesting. But the flow three implications, I think, have to be thought through before we can confidently endorse that.

257
00:26:42,090 --> 00:26:51,540
So that's the first sort of and the fourth point. Then on the final point you made about pragmatism and rule consequentialist and whether

258
00:26:52,140 --> 00:26:56,150
international law should be seen as grounded in that rather than resting upon this,

259
00:26:56,160 --> 00:27:00,719
a more kind of romantic nationalist foundations that we suggest. Okay.

260
00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:06,330
And maybe but I'm feeling here and I'm drawing, I guess,

261
00:27:06,330 --> 00:27:12,420
particularly on the position roles articulated in a lot of people is also sort of they're implicitly in most of the for the reasons we give up,

262
00:27:12,450 --> 00:27:20,249
we think the rules captures it better. That kind of approach doesn't really fully seem to capture the value of sovereignty and that sort of approach.

263
00:27:20,250 --> 00:27:25,229
It seems that the sovereignty of non-liberal states and polities is sort of dependent

264
00:27:25,230 --> 00:27:30,420
upon some kind of contingent concession rather than a genuine deep equality of policies.

265
00:27:31,740 --> 00:27:35,580
So those sort of there's a certain sense in which under that approach,

266
00:27:35,580 --> 00:27:40,980
international law wouldn't be regarding non-liberal polities as fully equal participants in international society.

267
00:27:42,060 --> 00:27:47,030
And that sort of, in our view, really leaves the imperialism concern intact.

268
00:27:47,030 --> 00:27:52,770
Domain rules in law. People doesn't talk about liberal imperialism, but it does talk about real condescension of liberal condescension.

269
00:27:53,490 --> 00:28:00,059
And so my feeling is that that kind of analysis still leaves some of those concerns intact.

270
00:28:00,060 --> 00:28:06,570
And that's why we think if you really do want to just you know, we're not saying the current international status quo is justified.

271
00:28:06,570 --> 00:28:12,600
We're kind of agnostic in the papers to whether nationalism or liberalism is the superior way to go.

272
00:28:12,600 --> 00:28:16,589
But but we I think we would say, if you want to defend something like the status quo,

273
00:28:16,590 --> 00:28:23,520
including that sense that it's not a condescension, it's a genuine equality, then you do have to move away from liberalism.

274
00:28:25,590 --> 00:28:29,320
Okay. Thanks very much. All right.

275
00:28:29,760 --> 00:28:31,260
Let me. Write down the first two or so.

276
00:28:31,440 --> 00:28:41,639
So we're going to try again conditionally to use the fingered interventions, but on the same conditions as yesterday, we can't be very many.

277
00:28:41,640 --> 00:28:45,090
So think of it as requiring something pretty close to supreme emergency.

278
00:28:45,600 --> 00:28:51,569
But the point that's worth making is very likely still going to be worth making 20 minutes later.

279
00:28:51,570 --> 00:28:58,230
So you can just get in line. And the other thing is you can't conduct a general dialogue on the basis of a finger.

280
00:28:58,300 --> 00:29:05,310
The good news is, if you're in the list, you can I think it's very useful to let people go on for a while.

281
00:29:05,310 --> 00:29:14,970
Okay, let's see. So I got Seth and Jeff Oak has Burns and Victor and Cheney.

282
00:29:16,320 --> 00:29:20,190
Okay, that's plenty. Okay, Seth, thanks.

283
00:29:20,580 --> 00:29:26,430
I really enjoyed the paper. And I think a reflection then it's it's not really a criticism.

284
00:29:26,430 --> 00:29:29,730
It's just an observation, I guess that just occurred to me.

285
00:29:31,470 --> 00:29:36,750
So one of the things that we're aware we're doing some of the things on a few papers is think about,

286
00:29:36,750 --> 00:29:42,630
you know, what values might justify this political offensive privilege.

287
00:29:43,230 --> 00:29:49,120
And one of the problems of sort of implicitly wrestling where they're thinking about is this Simmons particularity problem.

288
00:29:50,130 --> 00:29:52,920
And and it struck me that in a way,

289
00:29:52,920 --> 00:30:00,569
we're kind of thinking about maybe we're thinking about the values that underlie the political offensive privilege along their own sort of analogy.

290
00:30:00,570 --> 00:30:05,530
Maybe Simmons is as well. So here's a thought, right? And what is it that grounds my right?

291
00:30:05,530 --> 00:30:10,350
And this is going to be a fully blown, lame domestic analogy.

292
00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:17,790
One of the values that underlie my right to self-defence, and one of them is my moral statement.

293
00:30:18,450 --> 00:30:25,200
Okay, how do we understand the basis of moral status? It's going to be grounded in characteristics in which you can have more or less.

294
00:30:25,860 --> 00:30:28,920
So I suppose it's something to do with consciousness of self-awareness.

295
00:30:29,610 --> 00:30:36,450
There can be some people who can be pretty, pretty dumb if you still cross the threshold, if you like, for having moral status as persons.

296
00:30:36,750 --> 00:30:39,809
And there can be some people who are incredibly reflective and amazing and just

297
00:30:39,810 --> 00:30:43,650
because they're incredibly reflective and have these wonderfully developed minds,

298
00:30:44,010 --> 00:30:46,530
that doesn't give them any greater rights of self-defence. Right?

299
00:30:47,010 --> 00:30:50,190
So the rights of self-defence that we have as individuals is partly grounded in these

300
00:30:50,190 --> 00:30:56,819
characteristics that we have crossing a certain threshold and of all of liability,

301
00:30:56,820 --> 00:30:58,890
of being a range property, something like that.

302
00:31:00,690 --> 00:31:05,549
And it struck me that when we're talking about the political defence of privilege and we tend to be thinking,

303
00:31:05,550 --> 00:31:07,920
I think in terms of while if you're grounded in a value,

304
00:31:08,250 --> 00:31:15,450
then if the other side's going to have more value is in this how I phrase doing it, the other states have more value than the one that has no value.

305
00:31:15,570 --> 00:31:21,360
Right? Which is kind of analogous to saying if some really, really clever guy wants to come kill me and I should, you know,

306
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:28,050
I shouldn't have the right to self-defence against him because he realises the values on which my right to self-defence is grounded.

307
00:31:28,920 --> 00:31:33,270
And so that's so I wonder whether we should be and I think this fits better with doing this.

308
00:31:33,270 --> 00:31:39,000
Let's go with your analysis, which suggests that once the state passes the threshold of normative integration,

309
00:31:39,630 --> 00:31:43,720
they're going to then have this political equivalent. So I just wanted to offer that.

310
00:31:45,390 --> 00:31:50,010
Yeah, I think I agree with the implications of what you're saying.

311
00:31:50,880 --> 00:31:54,150
So, I mean, Rawls has the political perception of the person.

312
00:31:54,270 --> 00:32:00,360
And equally, a lot of people see you have lots of international blue conception of a people, of peoples,

313
00:32:00,540 --> 00:32:07,080
and it is a threshold account and that's why it's a decent hierarchical resample get over the law,

314
00:32:07,120 --> 00:32:12,510
even though in Rawls own view, for example, they're not as valuable as liberal states.

315
00:32:12,780 --> 00:32:16,230
But I mean, because of his international public reason framework,

316
00:32:16,620 --> 00:32:24,269
that that's a purely private judgement of his in the same way that a liberal Catholic might wish that everyone else was also a Catholic.

317
00:32:24,270 --> 00:32:29,760
But, you know, liberal democracy sort of can't politically and publicly act on that as a purely private desire.

318
00:32:30,300 --> 00:32:36,090
So I guess that's the point that we're making. Is that why did it cross the threshold?

319
00:32:37,110 --> 00:32:42,330
I mean, our discussion of Rawls is sort of truncated. I think interpreting Law of Peoples is very, very challenging.

320
00:32:42,750 --> 00:32:48,030
I think David Reidy, I think, has kind of part of the best account in print,

321
00:32:48,030 --> 00:32:53,909
although modestly suggests to my own account that a footnote in the collection on the WTO and human rights,

322
00:32:53,910 --> 00:32:57,750
I think, also tries to get rules pretty right, and it's fairly consistent with rulings in hand.

323
00:32:59,100 --> 00:33:04,740
But the way out of the rules is that to cross the threshold, you have to be a genuinely self-determining collective.

324
00:33:05,130 --> 00:33:08,880
And that means that you can't be in a situation where persons are being oppressed.

325
00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:11,580
Sometimes you that the phrase was a slice of logic.

326
00:33:12,150 --> 00:33:19,350
And I think his articulation of his notorious limited list of human rights is these are what you need in order not to be a slave society,

327
00:33:19,350 --> 00:33:23,670
which I'm a Christian, in order to be genuine, a genuine self-determining collective.

328
00:33:24,540 --> 00:33:28,440
And it still actually rules out a whole lot of states which are out there in the world.

329
00:33:30,120 --> 00:33:38,819
Simply enjoying the privilege of political defence. So it's the question of how does one plausibly articulate the threshold that I think liberals,

330
00:33:38,820 --> 00:33:47,040
I think still are going to set a pretty high and even role sets it implausibly high relative to international common sense.

331
00:33:47,980 --> 00:33:50,120
We're not disciples of we have high simplicity.

332
00:33:50,400 --> 00:33:54,720
But it does it does help when you're talking about the liberal state defending itself against another liberal state.

333
00:33:55,320 --> 00:33:59,160
Right. Because the fact that the other liberal state is more liberal.

334
00:33:59,910 --> 00:34:03,960
So Rawls certainly will give you that. I'm great rolls at that point sort of liberal cosmopolitans.

335
00:34:03,970 --> 00:34:07,560
I don't know. Say I don't know which side is favoured yet.

336
00:34:07,830 --> 00:34:09,690
Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that.

337
00:34:09,690 --> 00:34:17,490
But I think that at that point, you still think articulate some value that you're setting up against individual inviolability, which I think rules it.

338
00:34:19,440 --> 00:34:23,069
Okay, David, figure on such analogy.

339
00:34:23,070 --> 00:34:27,540
I mean, the analogy, any works, if you attribute something intrinsic value to the state,

340
00:34:28,110 --> 00:34:32,519
if you think you have a country that the states realising is entirely instrumental for the people that it serves.

341
00:34:32,520 --> 00:34:36,719
And I think the analogy doesn't work because the value for those individuals might be

342
00:34:36,720 --> 00:34:42,030
served as well as a matter of oppression to another equally just wanting to stay.

343
00:34:46,180 --> 00:34:52,150
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that doesn't really it doesn't change the fact that much.

344
00:34:52,240 --> 00:34:57,910
But what it does, it just illustrates that the the model of just you guys, I mean,

345
00:34:57,910 --> 00:35:02,070
this is this comes a lot of this presupposes of Simmons the particularity problem

346
00:35:02,680 --> 00:35:06,579
specifically the idea of why you get to protect your particular set of institutions,

347
00:35:06,580 --> 00:35:08,890
why they're tied to Islam.

348
00:35:09,550 --> 00:35:18,070
Um, and it's just illustrative of the fact that the same thing applies, does exactly the same thing applies to those individual rights were defending.

349
00:35:18,430 --> 00:35:22,419
Obviously to show that the analogy works. I mean at the moment it is just an analogy.

350
00:35:22,420 --> 00:35:25,180
It has no justification for force whatsoever.

351
00:35:25,510 --> 00:35:35,440
You would have to make I, I mean, on your on that I think that what you said makes me sort of at that point worry about the analogy.

352
00:35:35,440 --> 00:35:40,899
I think for the same sort of reason David said that this and if you if you value individual

353
00:35:40,900 --> 00:35:45,549
inviolability I just can't think of any plausible argument that a really clever person killing,

354
00:35:45,550 --> 00:35:53,740
even a fairly stupid person affirms that value. Really man, unless they are informed of their preference that you be dead.

355
00:35:54,190 --> 00:35:56,560
It's kind of so crucial. I mean, that's getting that up.

356
00:35:57,190 --> 00:36:03,280
But I mean, but that's not the standard liberal kind of individual involved with value idea with inviolability is it's what is inviolability based on.

357
00:36:03,280 --> 00:36:07,450
And inviolability is based on the characteristics that make you that grant united

358
00:36:07,450 --> 00:36:10,760
status and to give an account of those characteristics that are very good,

359
00:36:11,130 --> 00:36:15,770
they go, how different is this better realise or foster that with a clever person is.

360
00:36:15,880 --> 00:36:23,890
Whereas I think I would agree with David that if that's what you're focusing on fill in the state clearly so it's interesting.

361
00:36:25,330 --> 00:36:29,350
Okay Jeff I'm.

362
00:36:31,980 --> 00:36:35,140
The the argument in Patrick's paper.

363
00:36:35,910 --> 00:36:40,050
Is framed in collectivist terms.

364
00:36:40,320 --> 00:36:44,160
It's focussed on the rights and privileges of states.

365
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:59,620
But. Liberal cosmopolitanism in some of its variants is a radically individualist view which discounts the importance of states.

366
00:37:01,750 --> 00:37:06,280
In understanding the morality of the use of force.

367
00:37:08,260 --> 00:37:15,960
And that fact opens up. Two different distinct dimensions to the problem of intervention.

368
00:37:16,620 --> 00:37:20,700
First of all, there's a problem of the permissibility of intervention.

369
00:37:22,330 --> 00:37:27,970
And then there's secondly, the problem of the permissibility of resistance to intervention.

370
00:37:29,320 --> 00:37:35,200
And you're focusing primarily on the second of those, the political defence privilege.

371
00:37:36,160 --> 00:37:43,540
But it's important to note that James's fourth point about a kind of some sort

372
00:37:43,540 --> 00:37:51,730
of requirement of consent by the alleged beneficiaries of an intervention.

373
00:37:54,190 --> 00:37:56,380
An instance, let's say, a humanitarian intervention.

374
00:37:58,460 --> 00:38:07,110
Restricts the permissibility of intervention, the first of the two moral dimensions to the problem of intervention.

375
00:38:07,130 --> 00:38:19,850
I thought what you said, Patrick, in response to James's fourth point about the fact that you can have changes in political regime.

376
00:38:20,670 --> 00:38:28,709
Constitutional change and that sort of thing without popular input doesn't really address the point about intervention,

377
00:38:28,710 --> 00:38:40,470
which is intervention is not changed by force, by force of arms, by war, which is the focus of what James was discussing.

378
00:38:40,800 --> 00:38:53,100
His point was that one constraint on military intervention is that those who are the ostensible beneficiaries of the intervention.

379
00:38:54,140 --> 00:39:00,800
Should have some say about whether they should be exposed to the risks of having a war fought where they live,

380
00:39:01,880 --> 00:39:11,330
endangering their lives for the sake of some goals that they may or may not support,

381
00:39:12,200 --> 00:39:17,690
even though they may be or may be alleged to be intended to benefit them.

382
00:39:19,100 --> 00:39:28,430
So that's one point. I mean, I think James is right about that. His fourth point, justified interventions have to respect the.

383
00:39:29,860 --> 00:39:33,820
Preferences of the people who are the intended beneficiaries.

384
00:39:35,490 --> 00:39:40,110
Then on the second dimension, the permissibility of resistance.

385
00:39:40,630 --> 00:39:49,620
It seems to me that the obvious thing that the liberal Cosmopolitan can say is that it may well be that the state.

386
00:39:50,530 --> 00:39:58,020
If it's illegitimate, whatever, buy whatever lives may not have any right of defence of itself.

387
00:39:58,030 --> 00:39:59,860
Meaning something like that government.

388
00:40:00,820 --> 00:40:11,800
But the people may still, as individuals may still have some collectively actionable right against violent intervention,

389
00:40:13,270 --> 00:40:18,460
even if it's alleged to be in their interests.

390
00:40:18,820 --> 00:40:27,580
So I'm not saying that I know exactly how to respond to all the challenges that you and Seth have presented

391
00:40:27,580 --> 00:40:36,399
to the idea that what's at stake in a struggle for self self-determination by people not of state,

392
00:40:36,400 --> 00:40:44,770
but by people against military intervention is ever going to be enough to warrant violent resistance.

393
00:40:45,430 --> 00:40:50,560
But that's in a way, a separate question from the main issue in your paper.

394
00:40:58,410 --> 00:41:06,450
Thinking about James fourth point and the point about consent.

395
00:41:14,380 --> 00:41:14,980
There is.

396
00:41:17,700 --> 00:41:25,690
I mean, there is a difference between obviously between change of government by force of arms and charging government by a vote of no confidence.

397
00:41:26,380 --> 00:41:39,560
So on the floor of the House. I still wonder whether, in effect, kind of referendum as criterion of legitimacy,

398
00:41:41,150 --> 00:41:46,610
whether the articulation of how that applies to change by force of arms compared to

399
00:41:46,610 --> 00:41:54,860
sort of change in other contexts can be clearly articulated in a way that's plausible.

400
00:41:56,880 --> 00:42:07,120
I mean, I suppose one of the issues is whether we're going to revise our Constitution to permit the death penalty, for example.

401
00:42:08,080 --> 00:42:11,200
That has implications for some people's lives.

402
00:42:12,160 --> 00:42:21,040
Did the prison, the prospective murderers, have a right of veto or special privilege in respect of that,

403
00:42:21,670 --> 00:42:27,010
as opposed to, for example, an ordinary vote sort of through ordinary sort of political means being sufficient?

404
00:42:27,220 --> 00:42:30,470
I mean, not absurd that they do.

405
00:42:30,850 --> 00:42:38,409
They're not intuitive that they do either. Is the is the analogy I mean, the example sort of states claim after basic analogy,

406
00:42:38,410 --> 00:42:43,200
that is an analogy strong enough to bear the weight of putting on it, have to think about it a bit more.

407
00:42:43,210 --> 00:42:51,040
But I'm still I'm just sort of thinking about the constitutional theory in general and forms of the way political decisions are reached.

408
00:42:51,250 --> 00:42:55,899
A referendum requirement, I just think is a very radical a very radical requirement,

409
00:42:55,900 --> 00:43:02,430
which if we're going to articulate it, we need to think through very clearly what implications what implications it has.

410
00:43:03,840 --> 00:43:10,330
And the force of our support is fair. But I am worried that you're going to get domestic cases that might be unanimous in certain respects.

411
00:43:11,380 --> 00:43:16,570
I'm on the point about resistance by the people.

412
00:43:17,680 --> 00:43:30,030
I'm. I mean, we certainly if the intervention licenses sort of popular resistance in defence against genocide or homeland defence,

413
00:43:30,030 --> 00:43:34,170
I mean clearly we think that it's permissible in our paper if it's.

414
00:43:37,240 --> 00:43:48,490
If it's lost in some sort of further or kind of broader ground of maintaining sort of their own political institutions or political practices.

415
00:43:51,320 --> 00:44:00,229
I guess the challenge you see is what what account are we going to give of their their entitlement

416
00:44:00,230 --> 00:44:05,720
to protect their political practices or their form of political and social organisation,

417
00:44:06,530 --> 00:44:11,090
which doesn't then in some fashion, get inherited by their state.

418
00:44:13,270 --> 00:44:17,650
For example, how does one articulate what their form of political and social life is,

419
00:44:18,430 --> 00:44:22,509
which is defensible, abstracted away from the state in which they in fact live,

420
00:44:22,510 --> 00:44:30,579
which I hypothesised in your example is it inheriting their defence of right me is challenging enough as it is to articulate

421
00:44:30,580 --> 00:44:36,400
a certain people's form of collective political and social life as a kind of an issue in sort of political sociology,

422
00:44:37,090 --> 00:44:44,290
let alone articulating that in a way that abstracts away from the state in which the government under which they actually live.

423
00:44:44,830 --> 00:44:53,260
So at that point, I guess I challenged liberal cosmopolitanism gives show us some of the sociological detail and then maybe you're right,

424
00:44:53,800 --> 00:44:58,180
but it's certainly sociological. We think at least a sociological challenge to do that.

425
00:44:59,690 --> 00:45:07,420
Okay. Jeff's going to come back again. And then I have two fingered interventions on this, Major Underwood and Cecile.

426
00:45:08,080 --> 00:45:20,080
I'll try to. First of all, I, I I'm not persuaded that the death row inmate example has very much force here, simply because.

427
00:45:20,590 --> 00:45:31,960
It's a case in which it seems to me that the death row inmate may have forfeited any right to be involved in decisions about his own punishment.

428
00:45:32,500 --> 00:45:36,970
From that point of view, if prisoners retain the right to vote.

429
00:45:39,600 --> 00:45:47,829
Certainly never suppose that we should have a weighted ballot. This. On assistance by the people.

430
00:45:47,830 --> 00:45:51,250
I agree with you. The challenge here is to.

431
00:45:53,350 --> 00:45:56,440
Explain why a particular group of people have a right.

432
00:45:57,800 --> 00:46:05,450
Resistance independently of their state to protect their desire to.

433
00:46:06,640 --> 00:46:09,380
Determined collectively their own way of life.

434
00:46:10,120 --> 00:46:20,049
But I'm I'm not sure I understand exactly why the state should their state should inherit their defensive riot.

435
00:46:20,050 --> 00:46:28,370
It seems to me that very often. The state and the people it governs are.

436
00:46:31,080 --> 00:46:41,570
Radically alienated, and the people want independence, both from their own state and from rule by other states.

437
00:46:41,620 --> 00:46:51,000
I think of this quotation that I've cited and somewhere in the character in Graham Greene's novel, The Canadians, which is about Haiti under.

438
00:46:53,220 --> 00:46:57,050
First he says the characters and long.

439
00:46:57,920 --> 00:47:06,380
Duvalier regime is. The Marines came, I think I'd fight with the Duvalier forces.

440
00:47:07,310 --> 00:47:11,540
We don't want to be ruled by Duvalier. We also don't want to be ruled by the United States.

441
00:47:13,490 --> 00:47:19,880
The Journal. So thank you for my comments or I'm having a hard time seeing how.

442
00:47:20,860 --> 00:47:26,700
Consensus of the rescue can be a principle. I granted as a pragmatic objection.

443
00:47:27,360 --> 00:47:31,780
I actually give you a lot of stories of how hard it is to help people be helpful.

444
00:47:33,870 --> 00:47:46,510
But. The respecting the concerns of the rescued seems to presuppose the sort of value in collective autonomy that is already in question.

445
00:47:47,240 --> 00:47:48,920
All right. That's sort of the thing that I'm having.

446
00:47:49,070 --> 00:47:56,380
I'm struck is that we're going to say like the antebellum South in the United States before the Civil War.

447
00:47:59,520 --> 00:48:08,490
Slaves in the antebellum South certainly got nothing close to what we would call some sort of legitimate form of government.

448
00:48:09,150 --> 00:48:12,990
They had no way to voice their their collective swill.

449
00:48:15,600 --> 00:48:18,180
And the problem becomes why is that?

450
00:48:19,380 --> 00:48:28,200
Any expression of that will something to be respected in a principled way when we're talking about things like slavery,

451
00:48:28,200 --> 00:48:31,540
genocide and those sorts of things. So. The problem.

452
00:48:31,540 --> 00:48:38,169
I have a concern for the rescuers. What's at issue is how do we value collective will?

453
00:48:38,170 --> 00:48:42,830
And what seems to be the principal objection to rescuing these people is some sort of collective will.

454
00:48:46,440 --> 00:48:50,559
On. If I've understood your right.

455
00:48:50,560 --> 00:48:53,350
I think we're looking at Greece. Yes. Yes.

456
00:48:53,530 --> 00:49:05,950
So and I'll just add in terms of sort of what we think are some of the features of some liberal cosmopolitanism that support that idea,

457
00:49:05,950 --> 00:49:09,970
that sort of why should we have regard to that collective will?

458
00:49:10,120 --> 00:49:15,940
Even if you've got doubts that's been genuinely articulated, given there are no liberal institutions which is being done.

459
00:49:16,450 --> 00:49:22,779
Secondly, we think the universalism and the low threshold that creates the defence of others on liberal cosmopolitan

460
00:49:22,780 --> 00:49:29,229
account also makes it harder for the more difficult liberal cosmopolitan to explain why that would matter,

461
00:49:29,230 --> 00:49:37,690
in the sense that the idea that the liberal cosmopolitans idea that issues of what interests are best judged here of

462
00:49:37,690 --> 00:49:44,470
the day becomes harder to articulate because of that kind of commitment to universality and in personality and so on.

463
00:49:45,730 --> 00:49:52,110
And the bit about why the just comment about and about the death row enlightenment,

464
00:49:52,120 --> 00:50:01,930
I want to push that any further on the on the point about the why the state matters.

465
00:50:02,200 --> 00:50:13,590
I'm thinking if. If you sort of asked the British people to articulate what their sort of form of common political and social life is,

466
00:50:14,530 --> 00:50:23,580
you said in doing that, you may not mention anything about your constitution, your houses of parliament, your monarchy, your laws.

467
00:50:24,750 --> 00:50:28,950
Magna Carta. What resources would they have left?

468
00:50:30,930 --> 00:50:39,780
Now, in some cases, the sort of radicalisation you talk about will obtain brought about a higher in his book,

469
00:50:39,870 --> 00:50:48,540
in his general jurisprudence of Law and Society gives the example of unhappy Micronesia, where he worked for a while as a legal official.

470
00:50:48,900 --> 00:50:52,530
And he says that there really was kind of complete alienation between the official law,

471
00:50:52,530 --> 00:50:56,459
which is really relevant only for foreign companies dealing with. Yes. And the people of Yahoo!

472
00:50:56,460 --> 00:51:02,340
Conducted entirely under customary law. And so you can get cases where the alienation is close to total in those cases.

473
00:51:02,970 --> 00:51:07,020
The psychological challenge that I suggested arises, I think can be can be met.

474
00:51:07,650 --> 00:51:14,570
But a lot of states amend the Constitution.

475
00:51:14,580 --> 00:51:23,420
The political practices probably won't be as embedded as they are in Britain, but are likely to be, I think sufficiently embedded in period.

476
00:51:23,420 --> 00:51:29,860
The modernist project has gone far enough that I do think the psychological challenge I raised won't be trivial to meet today.

477
00:51:29,870 --> 00:51:39,180
That a bit more about what I'm thinking. Jess All right, so I'm persuaded that you responded to some of Jeff's challenges.

478
00:51:40,920 --> 00:51:47,040
I mean, I think it's entirely it seems to me the following two pronged position seems to me to be different.

479
00:51:47,250 --> 00:51:58,230
To wit, Stalin's Soviet Russia, rather, Stalin's regime had no claim whatsoever to Germany.

480
00:51:58,830 --> 00:52:08,460
But the Soviet citizens had a very strong defence in particular, from what we've heard by force.

481
00:52:09,660 --> 00:52:14,820
Some instances the latter. Well, it goes with the territory too.

482
00:52:14,850 --> 00:52:26,460
Just to have in mind this though, it seems to me that the difficulty for this sort of general account arises at the following point.

483
00:52:26,640 --> 00:52:33,480
It may very well be that one needed in Soviet Russia at the time that the institutions of Stalin's

484
00:52:33,480 --> 00:52:41,550
refusing order to prosecute citizens effectively to exercise their individual rights of compliance.

485
00:52:42,060 --> 00:52:47,310
So it seems to me that that might be one area in which you might want to apply pressure.

486
00:52:49,800 --> 00:52:59,790
If it is the case that individual citizens with a lot of resistance against the truth can only be discharged through illegitimate institutions,

487
00:52:59,790 --> 00:53:03,450
which quite institutions have no claim to being returned.

488
00:53:06,210 --> 00:53:10,140
I mean, there is it seems to be clear privileges here.

489
00:53:12,750 --> 00:53:17,969
So I think the second point is it is interesting about whether I mean, if you insist,

490
00:53:17,970 --> 00:53:20,880
if you dissolve the state, you also dissolve your military effectiveness.

491
00:53:21,270 --> 00:53:25,650
You know, I think that's an interesting episode to make for the points about.

492
00:53:28,680 --> 00:53:32,370
Yes. But on the other,

493
00:53:32,670 --> 00:53:45,450
I think the Russia of the Soviet case against Nazi Germany fairly clearly under our taxonomy is certainly homeland defence and also has elements

494
00:53:45,450 --> 00:53:52,440
at least a defence against genocide in the sense that there was a fairly clear expulsion and or enslavement and or genocidal policy there.

495
00:53:53,100 --> 00:54:05,280
So just the sorts of cases that are sort of become more doubtful as what is, let's say, the German war against Russian First World War,

496
00:54:06,300 --> 00:54:11,700
where the aim was this, as I was saying, the history was that expulsion or enslavement or genocide.

497
00:54:11,880 --> 00:54:17,550
But what example is episode in territories to replace Czarist regime with sort of the mocking regime?

498
00:54:18,090 --> 00:54:22,799
And that's where we kind of bite the bullet right to bits like the Iraq Kuwait example.

499
00:54:22,800 --> 00:54:29,850
I mean, it's been subject to kind of James point about degrees that have been subject to that.

500
00:54:29,850 --> 00:54:36,059
We kind of bite the bullet of that and say, I mean, obviously multiple proportionality type issues and so on, which we talk about.

501
00:54:36,060 --> 00:54:39,600
But at the level of what James is called deep morality, we're prepared to bite that bullet.

502
00:54:41,040 --> 00:54:47,730
Okay. Back to the list, which is Casper Victor Cheney and Laura Casper.

503
00:54:48,310 --> 00:54:52,180
I have a question regarding certain about.

504
00:54:53,430 --> 00:54:59,260
That's right. That people wanted to have this positive exchange.

505
00:55:03,350 --> 00:55:11,730
And one thing they might seem. Voluntary associations for expressive and affirming autonomy.

506
00:55:11,750 --> 00:55:19,040
The members that said an explanation they might suggest that that's in that process.

507
00:55:20,960 --> 00:55:27,830
If that's the reason why states have differences in legal cosmopolitan but don't seem

508
00:55:27,840 --> 00:55:35,360
to be permitted to say that other voluntary associations that express and some of the.

509
00:55:36,640 --> 00:55:45,540
The members who have the political. Defensive end isn't just a business and certainly an expensive proposition.

510
00:55:47,840 --> 00:55:55,830
So my question, I'm not sure I see it. It's kind of certainly an expensive conception of yourself.

511
00:55:56,240 --> 00:56:06,650
So so is my reasons. So the way you define political offensive, which is tied to.

512
00:56:09,180 --> 00:56:13,760
Resistance and scepticism based government to the territory of the nation.

513
00:56:13,770 --> 00:56:21,390
So you could simply make the analytical point that we define privilege.

514
00:56:21,960 --> 00:56:28,710
You just need some kind of statement. But I take it that this is not the main point.

515
00:56:29,640 --> 00:56:32,890
Then, of course, you've got to say that they're very best.

516
00:56:34,230 --> 00:56:42,630
See how you can have a mortgage. I put that these are unlikely to occur.

517
00:56:42,670 --> 00:56:47,550
But thinking about it, I don't see why they couldn't happen.

518
00:56:48,090 --> 00:56:50,370
Why would you leave pieces onstage?

519
00:56:50,700 --> 00:57:01,410
You shouldn't even enjoy defensive practices because then, for instance, the UN constitutes a voluntary association.

520
00:57:04,000 --> 00:57:13,250
So I suppose that's fuelled slightly different as opposed to the UN intervenes in a country to engage in civil wars.

521
00:57:14,440 --> 00:57:17,590
Why couldn't the UN have a political.

522
00:57:19,540 --> 00:57:27,630
Defence privilege if some passes and that's. Tries to destroy the U.N. as an organisation.

523
00:57:29,010 --> 00:57:39,920
Suppose that the Catholic Church go on Internet so they give up the Vatican State and then they still retain the organisation and the church.

524
00:57:39,930 --> 00:57:45,720
And then somebody tries to destroy that organisation by giving.

525
00:57:48,690 --> 00:57:56,620
That's hacking and this is just said, well, why would you choose to join the.

526
00:57:57,500 --> 00:58:02,770
Defence. So. So on.

527
00:58:02,770 --> 00:58:06,010
The analytic point was I was like, whoops, and we'll go back in.

528
00:58:06,250 --> 00:58:15,520
Whereas on the if you're in, okay, so if you're going to go that way is it's kind of fair enough.

529
00:58:15,520 --> 00:58:19,059
I mean, the I mean, the U.N. exam has its own sort of complexities.

530
00:58:19,060 --> 00:58:26,150
I mean, because it's I mean and the sort of uncharted these imaginary sort of military staff committee and so on.

531
00:58:26,170 --> 00:58:30,090
So I think the UN kind of raises complex points.

532
00:58:30,120 --> 00:58:35,170
I think they the Catholic Church example is kind of, I guess more subtly what we had had in mind.

533
00:58:36,910 --> 00:58:45,970
This is I mean sort of so roles in particular so writes a lot about through the identity because identity of um of religious organisations but.

534
00:58:48,020 --> 00:58:52,490
It's an issue. If you accept that, that's.

535
00:58:53,690 --> 00:58:59,810
Okay. Again, Ben went to try to bring out consequences.

536
00:59:01,010 --> 00:59:04,880
Okay. I guess one person's sort of redux goes another person's bullet to bite.

537
00:59:05,780 --> 00:59:09,110
But it does, I think, focus on the Catholic Church,

538
00:59:09,470 --> 00:59:14,480
which is a long standing organisation which has in the past just kind of fought wars in self-defence,

539
00:59:14,870 --> 00:59:26,630
maybe makes the Constitution seem less extreme and mean once you focus on sort of the very wide number of smaller sort of Protestant churches,

540
00:59:26,870 --> 00:59:33,349
particularly in the US, for example, which might easily be kind of identity and autonomy affirming for their members and also has

541
00:59:33,350 --> 00:59:37,970
more likely to come into potential conflict with one another and the Catholic Church then.

542
00:59:38,420 --> 00:59:41,990
Okay. And then if you think about remains the Church of Scientology.

543
00:59:42,380 --> 00:59:49,100
And then if you go beyond religious groups to other sorts of identity affirming groups like political parties, I mean, so in a sense,

544
00:59:49,340 --> 00:59:56,659
the Nazis asserted it on Blackshirts in general, sort of assert a type of political defensive privilege through their stormtroopers or whatever.

545
00:59:56,660 --> 01:00:04,129
But I mean, leaving aside sort of the the particularly abhorrence of their political values, I mean,

546
01:00:04,130 --> 01:00:12,560
even sort of should I like is the Greens party entitled to have kind of green shirts who defended my view.

547
01:00:12,560 --> 01:00:21,110
But I think it does have following it through a kind of has implications which are kind of significant and at least to some extent counter-intuitive

548
01:00:21,290 --> 01:00:30,439
is that sort of I think putting up the Catholic Church's example minimises their ways once we look at the green shirts and so on,

549
01:00:30,440 --> 01:00:33,230
I think is that really the path we ought to be heading down?

550
01:00:34,670 --> 01:00:41,980
Very so is the only thing I think is a good example of that sort of thing is that, you know.

551
01:00:42,740 --> 01:00:49,520
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah, yeah. Given that implication, if you're going to have yeah, yeah, yeah.

552
01:00:49,880 --> 01:01:03,160
The fact of the matter well comes when Kasper just said this point that in order to grant the political benefit to someone's interests,

553
01:01:03,350 --> 01:01:11,350
you don't have to to all the incentives. And that's the only thing you have to do to deny that this is spent.

554
01:01:11,770 --> 01:01:12,900
So at the expense of.

555
01:01:14,030 --> 01:01:24,510
It's too difficult to give some examples of instances where it doesn't seem like such a principled category of demarcation, I guess.

556
01:01:24,540 --> 01:01:27,740
Yeah. So and yeah. And again.

557
01:01:29,270 --> 01:01:39,840
Okay, Victor, one thing just to get sharpened up, I think, is the fact that an attack country has no right to defend itself against an attacker,

558
01:01:40,370 --> 01:01:47,690
doesn't imply a position on the attacker to attack the country for the reason that the when the country attacks,

559
01:01:47,750 --> 01:01:53,390
they might know that the defending country is going to nevertheless defend itself, even though it has no right to do so.

560
01:01:53,630 --> 01:01:59,930
There's going to be this big conflict, a lot of death. I think the country with just a roll over, then they would have the right to go in,

561
01:01:59,930 --> 01:02:03,830
but they don't have the right to go in because they know we're going to defend the South god of war and loss of life.

562
01:02:04,710 --> 01:02:12,860
So that's just one thing, just that we should just focus on the right to defend. That doesn't imply all of these these plausibly expensive.

563
01:02:13,250 --> 01:02:17,620
Most of us, this very reason will be most profound. So here's the puzzle.

564
01:02:19,100 --> 01:02:20,450
When we focus on the right of defence,

565
01:02:20,810 --> 01:02:32,030
how could it be that a country which has institutions which realise the autonomy of the citizens in a more effective way have.

566
01:02:33,260 --> 01:02:39,800
A reason to resist the establishment of institutions that are going to realise how many of their citizens in a better way.

567
01:02:40,380 --> 01:02:44,330
And that's just a challenge for cosmopolitans are not cosmopolitans, right?

568
01:02:44,390 --> 01:02:48,090
That's not a special challenge for cosmopolitans. But as a general challenge,

569
01:02:48,500 --> 01:02:54,740
if we're going to just impose the system is going to get you to realise your values better than the ones you have realising at the moment.

570
01:02:55,010 --> 01:03:05,450
And here are the possibilities of that challenge. One of the very value those being advanced might be set back by the imposition of the institutions.

571
01:03:05,720 --> 01:03:11,210
So one way to realise the values that we set up the institutions, when you come to set up the institutions for us,

572
01:03:11,480 --> 01:03:17,840
part of the value of all that we have individually and realise not only through a set

573
01:03:17,840 --> 01:03:22,040
of institutions is set back as institutions are imposed rather than us realising them.

574
01:03:22,700 --> 01:03:33,620
And here's another one that the value itself of realising personal autonomy through a political community is time dependent.

575
01:03:34,160 --> 01:03:39,710
So we are on the way to shaping ourselves as a political community will be is in a bit of a defective way.

576
01:03:40,160 --> 01:03:45,979
And when you put these new institutions in place, we're going to go back to time zero in shaping all autonomy,

577
01:03:45,980 --> 01:03:48,710
which then takes time to establish themselves as a community.

578
01:03:48,980 --> 01:03:56,660
And there might be reasons to be defensive, sensible institutions where we're already realising quite a lot of value.

579
01:03:57,140 --> 01:04:04,190
Well, but setting us back to zero and then getting us to start up again because some members of our community will die out

580
01:04:04,580 --> 01:04:11,900
before they get to a position where overall they've advance their autonomy through that new set of institutions.

581
01:04:12,050 --> 01:04:16,250
Well, the better it's worse to do it for some of the for some of our citizens.

582
01:04:20,320 --> 01:04:29,590
On the first one, our permissions versus privilege, which sort of intended to sort of pick that up through men for us,

583
01:04:29,770 --> 01:04:37,180
under the rubric of proportionality and necessity was sort of some of the roughly we could use it in a way that's the Jones point

584
01:04:37,450 --> 01:04:45,760
this question of whether we emphasise that enough or not to include more substantive take to me the more substantive point,

585
01:04:47,980 --> 01:04:52,540
the bit about time dependence I think is interesting.

586
01:04:52,930 --> 01:04:59,380
And also I think more men tend to take that on board and that.

587
01:05:01,590 --> 01:05:14,190
And also as a matter of methodology, it shows an attention to kind of like a sort of history or sort of psychology,

588
01:05:14,670 --> 01:05:24,989
which is slightly different in canon from the general thrust of sort of liberal cosmopolitan writing, which is a reason not to take them on board.

589
01:05:24,990 --> 01:05:33,780
But it's kind of interesting means inverted cosmopolitanism, plus a bit more sort of sociology gets us perhaps somewhere closer to common sense.

590
01:05:34,350 --> 01:05:42,840
To the first point, the book, the middle point, the first substantive points about that being a challenge for all.

591
01:05:44,220 --> 01:05:49,770
I'm not fully persuaded by that, because as you move away from a liberal cosmopolitan view, of course,

592
01:05:49,770 --> 01:05:59,159
the value that self-determination is realising is that autonomy, or at least individual autonomy, is some other sort of value of values.

593
01:05:59,160 --> 01:06:03,630
And indeed the values might be different and different in different communities.

594
01:06:04,050 --> 01:06:15,290
So I'm not just me, and I'm not sure that sort of the challenge is there for everyone to say how can we sort of justify I mean,

595
01:06:15,300 --> 01:06:20,550
how can we object to knocking down this thing in favour of other things for better, real and valuable things?

596
01:06:20,670 --> 01:06:28,650
It is a challenge to Liberals as well. So for all liberals, not just liberals, lots of other liberals do,

597
01:06:28,950 --> 01:06:33,660
but who think that liberal institutions are better at realising value than monarchists.

598
01:06:33,960 --> 01:06:37,110
So it's not a challenge to moralities of liberalism.

599
01:06:37,110 --> 01:06:40,950
Just one view we have. I can just take it. Yeah, okay.

600
01:06:40,950 --> 01:06:48,950
That makes it okay on this. David So just on this first point about the privilege of defence,

601
01:06:48,960 --> 01:06:54,330
nothing extensive with the permissibility of attack and I think he actually phrased it in a slightly weaker form.

602
01:06:54,330 --> 01:06:57,690
I mean, it's not just about the fact that people sometimes will defend against an end of the right,

603
01:06:57,690 --> 01:07:01,920
which you kind of said you would then incorporate as your points about proportionality, necessity.

604
01:07:02,250 --> 01:07:04,440
I mean, these are analytically different concepts, right?

605
01:07:04,440 --> 01:07:11,190
I mean, know, you can fail to have defensive rights for a whole bunch of reasons that don't have to do with them,

606
01:07:11,190 --> 01:07:16,940
as this has lots of examples where, you know, defence would be impossible, but the attack is equally infinitesimal.

607
01:07:17,010 --> 01:07:23,600
You get this in provocation cases in self-defence, for example, in the case of war, if you imagine, you know, a state that has, you know,

608
01:07:23,610 --> 01:07:31,230
a regime that is enslaving its own population and that regime is then being attacked by an aggressor who controls the population as well.

609
01:07:31,260 --> 01:07:37,200
I mean, it's just clear that you can have those just analytically deficient concepts.

610
01:07:40,630 --> 01:07:48,090
I mean, the the case of enslavement. Then under our campaign, even the defence of privilege arises.

611
01:07:48,090 --> 01:07:55,830
So you get at least an overlap in there, although I'm not sure that the objective, the distinction to draw.

612
01:07:58,200 --> 01:08:02,930
Okay. Jenny Ryan, I like it here.

613
01:08:03,510 --> 01:08:05,940
This is just a couple of historical comments which.

614
01:08:07,610 --> 01:08:16,010
As you please, that the United States actually did have a substantial debate over whether it could go to war without a referendum.

615
01:08:17,060 --> 01:08:18,800
This happened before World War One.

616
01:08:19,790 --> 01:08:27,230
And the issue was that some people felt that the Constitution only empowered the country to go to war in self-defence.

617
01:08:27,780 --> 01:08:31,460
And since World War One was not a war of self-defence as far as the United States was concerned,

618
01:08:32,360 --> 01:08:35,870
and there was by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan,

619
01:08:36,350 --> 01:08:42,440
resigned from the administration over this issue and campaigned throughout the United States on

620
01:08:42,440 --> 01:08:47,180
the issue that it was unconstitutional to go to war without a popular referendum interstate.

621
01:08:47,240 --> 01:08:57,560
Speaker of the House of Wilson's own party agreed with this, and it only lost by ten votes to the proposal that you had to have a referendum.

622
01:08:57,800 --> 01:09:01,520
It was actually revived again via World War Two.

623
01:09:01,980 --> 01:09:06,620
But but. And was also gaining steam when until Pearl Harbour came along.

624
01:09:07,040 --> 01:09:08,269
So I've always had this kind of interest.

625
01:09:08,270 --> 01:09:15,560
And even in the United States, it's not been taken as obvious that you could have a war without a general a general referendum.

626
01:09:15,890 --> 01:09:22,940
That's interesting. So the second thing is, I think I would question whether the American Revolution led to a liberal state.

627
01:09:23,330 --> 01:09:25,340
It depends on what you're talking about.

628
01:09:26,150 --> 01:09:32,390
Britain, the British clearly had more liberal policies on Native Americans and the British clearly had more liberal policies on slavery.

629
01:09:32,780 --> 01:09:38,540
So the American Revolution did defend the liberal right that you couldn't be taxed without representation.

630
01:09:39,080 --> 01:09:44,270
But but it did. But I think that the general feeling, particularly from Canada,

631
01:09:44,270 --> 01:09:50,630
is that much more liberal policies would have resulted if the United States had remained a dominion.

632
01:09:54,230 --> 01:10:05,420
My whole thing is not not to be American, that this has to do with defending one's territory.

633
01:10:05,420 --> 01:10:12,110
And I mention this because I try to, you know, as much as possible, muddy what people see as clear cases.

634
01:10:12,110 --> 01:10:17,690
And I'll do it again with one of my favourite examples, which is the attack on the attack on Pearl Harbour.

635
01:10:18,950 --> 01:10:26,180
Hawaii was not a state of the United States. What happened? It was a territory that people living in United States do not have the right to vote.

636
01:10:26,540 --> 01:10:29,600
They did not have the right to participate in elections.

637
01:10:30,020 --> 01:10:38,240
And it was only 50 years after a tremendous argument that went on through two administrations about the legality of annexing Hawaii,

638
01:10:39,780 --> 01:10:45,350
that that was finally resolved because of the Spanish-American War,

639
01:10:45,770 --> 01:10:50,540
because it was felt that Hawaii was necessary, the defence of the occupation of the Philippines.

640
01:10:51,080 --> 01:10:57,770
So, so, so Hawaii was basically a front colony to defend other colonies.

641
01:10:58,340 --> 01:11:04,979
Now now whether or not we agree that the attack on the Y was an imminent threat to the existence of the United States,

642
01:11:04,980 --> 01:11:09,950
which I think is an implausible view, it seems to be a case where you have a Liberal government.

643
01:11:12,210 --> 01:11:18,930
Stealing another piece of territory. You have a fascist government attacking the stolen piece of territory.

644
01:11:19,140 --> 01:11:25,360
And then the question becomes, can the Liberal government respond to the fascist government for an attack on a stolen piece of territory?

645
01:11:26,250 --> 01:11:31,110
And that's and I would say, by the way, that strikes me as typical of a lot of the wars of the 20th century.

646
01:11:33,730 --> 01:11:42,080
So I thought of that when I was reading the first principles about defensive ones territory, because it has never been said yesterday.

647
01:11:42,090 --> 01:11:46,040
This is a kind of a muddy, muddy issue for us.

648
01:11:46,050 --> 01:11:49,740
Right? The Falklands War. Yeah. Bob were brought up.

649
01:11:49,740 --> 01:12:00,270
One of the things I certainly mean when we talk about sort of a defensive sort of sort of war, is that a purely defensive sort of territory?

650
01:12:00,270 --> 01:12:04,679
Control over populations which don't have to chance a lot of time that has carried such armies,

651
01:12:04,680 --> 01:12:12,990
have had the Falklands in mind, had so much had sort of a Pearl Harbour in mind for that that.

652
01:12:15,830 --> 01:12:22,399
The as I make the point about whether the US revolution gave us a little bit of a well taken,

653
01:12:22,400 --> 01:12:29,570
the other point of history of ignoring the details of how I knew who I was and stating the details

654
01:12:29,570 --> 01:12:33,470
of annexation to do with defending the Philippines and also on the debate about referendum.

655
01:12:33,500 --> 01:12:41,950
So thank you for those examples. Okay, so I have two points.

656
01:12:41,950 --> 01:12:48,040
And the first one goes back to the discussion of the challenge for the cosmopolitan liberal to resist

657
01:12:48,040 --> 01:12:55,240
the conclusion that a more just liberal state should intervene less just have will big institutions.

658
01:12:55,960 --> 01:13:01,870
And I think one available argumentative avenue for the cosmopolitan Liberal is to see that

659
01:13:03,340 --> 01:13:10,060
there is reasonable disagreement about which liberal state best realises liberal values.

660
01:13:10,070 --> 01:13:14,230
So if you take the idea that liberalism is about the protection of freedom and equality.

661
01:13:15,870 --> 01:13:20,500
And at least in the literature of political liberalism, not necessarily the of peoples.

662
01:13:20,740 --> 01:13:25,420
That's the idea that these ideas can be articulated in different ways and different political systems and

663
01:13:25,420 --> 01:13:30,760
that there's reasonable disagreement about which one is the more just so it would be illiberal in a way,

664
01:13:30,760 --> 01:13:37,980
to impose one particular interpretation of liberalism on another liberal state, given that we cannot determine which one is superior.

665
01:13:38,920 --> 01:13:47,500
So that's the first point. The second point has to do with the worries about liberal imperialism and that you put forward in a paper,

666
01:13:47,950 --> 01:13:56,590
I think on page 14 of the paper, you commit these worries to the particular composition of existing liberal state.

667
01:13:56,710 --> 01:14:00,580
You mentioned Europe and North America as examples.

668
01:14:01,270 --> 01:14:07,810
And what worried me a little bit about this sort of reference, the real world,

669
01:14:08,320 --> 01:14:16,720
is that real world liberal states very different from the kind of idealised liberal states that we find in France and little people.

670
01:14:17,080 --> 01:14:23,500
And it might be that from this ability of intervention, not only depends on considerations to do with proportionality,

671
01:14:23,500 --> 01:14:29,590
likelihood of success, but also on the moral position of the particular states that would intervene.

672
01:14:30,040 --> 01:14:33,519
And if you agree with, you don't even need to agree with the target.

673
01:14:33,520 --> 01:14:36,940
Actually, that. Western states.

674
01:14:37,450 --> 01:14:40,959
If Western liberal states are somehow complicit in some international wrongs,

675
01:14:40,960 --> 01:14:44,530
even from the perspective of the little people, peoples, they would count as culpable.

676
01:14:44,800 --> 01:14:49,750
And there's an extra question as to whether they have the moral authority to intervene, even if the intervention of.

677
01:14:51,020 --> 01:14:55,790
Uh oh. Well. Okay.

678
01:14:56,380 --> 01:15:00,680
Um, on the first point, uh.

679
01:15:01,920 --> 01:15:07,920
Okay. So help yourself the analytical distinction between commissions and defensive privileges.

680
01:15:09,500 --> 01:15:18,030
The point about the rate of disagreement. Might show that a given liberal state doesn't have a mission.

681
01:15:18,270 --> 01:15:27,730
Oh, it's not a liberal state. I'm not sure, though, how far it goes in if the intervention then takes place.

682
01:15:27,740 --> 01:15:37,540
I'm not sure that it establishes the permissibility of defence, the right to defend in the sense of what values will be upheld,

683
01:15:37,540 --> 01:15:42,190
that defence that would justify the tremendous suffering that would follow.

684
01:15:42,730 --> 01:15:51,910
Given that, I would say that in a sense there's no we can't say of the new form of liberation that would be

685
01:15:51,910 --> 01:15:58,420
imposed if there was the resistance is worse than what was there in the sense that the kind of

686
01:15:58,630 --> 01:16:05,860
reasoned disagreement that what cuts both ways so that so on the first point on the second point

687
01:16:08,140 --> 01:16:16,030
I agree and actually said something similar in some comments in the paper when I said it to him.

688
01:16:16,870 --> 01:16:22,810
And we do sort of cross over frequent ideal and not ideal theory in a somewhat casual way.

689
01:16:23,260 --> 01:16:26,710
And our sense except that criticism.

690
01:16:28,790 --> 01:16:35,220
No, I'm not sure this is a defence, but I mean, sort of say rules in law peoples does the same, you mean for example.

691
01:16:35,260 --> 01:16:40,610
And so I tried to get up trying to get up some passages, for example,

692
01:16:40,610 --> 01:16:44,740
where he suggests that the US isn't really a liberal state at all because he took his intervention in Central South America.

693
01:16:45,100 --> 01:16:50,230
But also he appeals to the US as an example of improved democratic peace, which is meant to be moving under your theory.

694
01:16:50,340 --> 01:16:57,160
So there's and but you can kind of see how he falls into the problem, because if you completely disregard reality, what's the point of any of it?

695
01:16:57,640 --> 01:17:03,790
So you're always looking in a sense, to try to sort of cash it out and try to get sort of something that looks within the neighbourhood.

696
01:17:04,010 --> 01:17:10,850
And again, again, even a yes or no almost entirely agreed is sort of a methodological issue there,

697
01:17:10,880 --> 01:17:20,350
which would try to be tighter that that our aim in being tight would not be to so tight as to kind of lose any reality.

698
01:17:22,960 --> 01:17:30,190
Okay. Going to have a question from Graham Long and and that'll be it.

699
01:17:31,660 --> 01:17:35,290
Oh, have you had. I didn't have a hand up before. Oh, okay.

700
01:17:35,410 --> 01:17:38,770
All right. There's a little time. Good. Okay. Graham then.

701
01:17:38,770 --> 01:17:43,010
Chris. So I had a question was I want to just briefly on this idea of people showing.

702
01:17:43,740 --> 01:17:53,790
And that is that well, the world in light of this is if you impose something on somebody where they recently rejected that in itself is unreasonable.

703
01:17:54,510 --> 01:17:58,840
So that would be a reason to resist the imposition of even a better, you know.

704
01:18:00,930 --> 01:18:07,489
If somebody else thinks you superior because that you can have no claim when you've young your view of experience when they post on you,

705
01:18:07,490 --> 01:18:09,530
they seem to be reasonable at all times.

706
01:18:09,780 --> 01:18:21,590
And my question, I was thinking about this idea of the connection between the privilege of the physical expense and the possibility of war.

707
01:18:22,930 --> 01:18:28,480
I wonder if you might be able to connect the two? I think I think because my definition of love is being cautious.

708
01:18:28,720 --> 01:18:33,100
If you just talk about there being a low threshold for admissible invasion,

709
01:18:33,640 --> 01:18:43,060
so you might get into the notion of just cause you might have a you might be speaking a stronger version in the weak motion might say that where you.

710
01:18:44,740 --> 01:18:48,790
But it might be that intrinsic to notion just causes the idea that we want

711
01:18:48,790 --> 01:18:52,930
just goes to specify a situation we wouldn't want somebody by invading them.

712
01:18:53,800 --> 01:19:03,310
But it might be that this lack of privilege is going to be bad for citizens or whatever grounds the notion that we lose out.

713
01:19:03,460 --> 01:19:07,600
But political events would also ground the idea that we don't want these people coming back.

714
01:19:09,340 --> 01:19:15,830
But if you want to go further than that and say that lack of normal speculation because it just calls for war,

715
01:19:15,860 --> 01:19:22,450
that looks a bit suspect, I'm going to do my best. My first thought is it might be circumstances where the stakes are very well

716
01:19:22,450 --> 01:19:26,319
organised or is it going to be news that hasn't got itself off the ground?

717
01:19:26,320 --> 01:19:29,230
But if you like the lack of military space, this isn't just nobody's fault.

718
01:19:29,650 --> 01:19:34,420
But if you stick with make another claim about stakes that she loses that block, you know what,

719
01:19:34,420 --> 01:19:39,370
resistance movement towards the myth of integration, then that might not be implausibly strong.

720
01:19:40,060 --> 01:19:45,340
They just go through and if it's just goes to war up to that might come into place as well.

721
01:19:45,580 --> 01:19:49,210
That might be one way to connect this permissibility question.

722
01:19:53,090 --> 01:19:58,840
Some. So.

723
01:20:00,920 --> 01:20:07,040
So I think obviously it's becoming clear that the issue of sort of a permissibility

724
01:20:07,040 --> 01:20:12,800
versus privilege needs to be articulated more clearly in either of the.

725
01:20:16,890 --> 01:20:32,140
In the case. And I mean, you know, and our focus obviously is sort of a primarily on the defensive privilege, which means that you rather than.

726
01:20:40,110 --> 01:20:46,980
Rather. And that's why we want to make the focus, which means instead of the instance, that's a particular priority rather than permissibility.

727
01:20:47,430 --> 01:20:53,459
But we also do pose the question.

728
01:20:53,460 --> 01:20:56,910
We sort of pose a rhetorically and rhetorical question. Is it an argument?

729
01:20:57,830 --> 01:21:04,680
It's a question. An argument. But we say instead of circumstances, what reason would a liberal cosmopolitan have?

730
01:21:04,680 --> 01:21:07,950
Some principle reason have not to regard it intervention as permissible,

731
01:21:07,950 --> 01:21:13,710
and obviously that the issues of abortion sort of give away under a fairly broad rubric proportionality.

732
01:21:13,920 --> 01:21:21,360
Clearly a relevant set of reasons. But in your case, of a state which is sort of fledgling and only getting off the ground,

733
01:21:22,530 --> 01:21:30,450
suppose that you're fairly confident that by that trickle there won't be any resistance.

734
01:21:30,960 --> 01:21:36,180
You from that there are even the means of resistance. I mean, the military that have entitlements, like you said, everything else.

735
01:21:37,110 --> 01:21:40,470
What reason does a liberal, cosmopolitan,

736
01:21:40,680 --> 01:21:52,050
cosmopolitan have available to articulate why not to go in and impose robust liberal administrative sort of organisation?

737
01:21:52,530 --> 01:22:03,620
And the answer is these people's individual autonomy in our thought is, well, our liberal regimes who can realise and indeed foster in a way that,

738
01:22:03,940 --> 01:22:09,090
that the non-legal things that they want, if it's collective to the political agency,

739
01:22:09,570 --> 01:22:14,460
will have that if that's appealing to a value which the liberals of the have available to.

740
01:22:15,000 --> 01:22:19,530
So I mean that's sort of the the pattern of thought we're trying to develop.

741
01:22:19,530 --> 01:22:29,100
And I know I don't feel that the fledgling government puts out a particularly sort of special case.

742
01:22:29,280 --> 01:22:36,600
I mean, it's you know, it's just in five years time, it's pretty clear that has gone from fledgling to robust.

743
01:22:37,530 --> 01:22:42,030
And I know a couple of thousand people are going to die in the intervention.

744
01:22:42,030 --> 01:22:46,920
In the meantime, I therefore, you've got to kind of get a clear reason not to intervene, namely those deaths.

745
01:22:47,490 --> 01:22:51,300
But it is going to be bloodless, extremely close to bloodless.

746
01:22:51,570 --> 01:22:56,880
And the prospects of moving from fledgling to robust are a bit more wishful.

747
01:22:58,680 --> 01:23:03,420
But that's the lesson that I can say that you and I saw from this letters.

748
01:23:03,450 --> 01:23:10,350
I mean, I have a vague worry that it might be a bit paradoxical to try to impose just the institutions of the state.

749
01:23:12,090 --> 01:23:14,219
And that sounds counterintuitive.

750
01:23:14,220 --> 01:23:19,230
Doesn't that mean hopefully people economies that they get to decide for themselves in their own way how the institutions move out,

751
01:23:19,520 --> 01:23:23,159
that they believe in autonomy?

752
01:23:23,160 --> 01:23:27,389
Then there's good reason that hesitation should be about simply imposing a thank you fund.

753
01:23:27,390 --> 01:23:29,469
If everything in it, if you see things going downhill.

754
01:23:29,470 --> 01:23:35,720
And this is where the fledgling government potential in the case of simply being most hopeful for but it's not going off the ground.

755
01:23:36,090 --> 01:23:42,510
If were just then they might intervene in ways should have to be military they can intervene to kind of support fiscal Koukoulas advisers,

756
01:23:42,510 --> 01:23:45,149
these kinds of things. So we're talking about military intervention.

757
01:23:45,150 --> 01:23:50,490
I think I want to see that there really wasn't any sympathy which was stopping this from happening.

758
01:23:50,490 --> 01:23:55,319
I think just takes a wild and uncomfortable fact, does have a reason to just let it take a while.

759
01:23:55,320 --> 01:23:58,600
If if it's an expression of influence on me, that's that's fine.

760
01:23:58,980 --> 01:24:03,630
But I guess in the example of this, I in the course of taking a while, if it's not liberal, yes.

761
01:24:03,690 --> 01:24:09,989
Other people's autonomy has been thwarted in the meantime. I mean, for example, no National Health Service has been set up.

762
01:24:09,990 --> 01:24:17,430
Right. And so we can say that people dying or not from education system being set up, we can see that some people as high, particularly girls,

763
01:24:17,430 --> 01:24:25,950
aren't being educated or I mean it is it's a fledgling isn't merely did a quite brilliant I mean I mean fledgling means

764
01:24:25,950 --> 01:24:31,620
fledgling right and that means that's going on which presumably you live because of all of its links to the stuff.

765
01:24:32,310 --> 01:24:35,580
So is there like a vacuum in then.

766
01:24:35,580 --> 01:24:42,719
It's good, it's right, it's bad and it's good. So I guess that's sort of thought that's the that's the conception.

767
01:24:42,720 --> 01:24:49,290
I guess it's driving our thoughts. Chris So this is a very simpleminded question.

768
01:24:49,890 --> 01:24:55,080
Jack already mentioned the the the sort of factual significance of the fact people will

769
01:24:55,080 --> 01:24:58,820
resist by having their own sons of [INAUDIBLE] replaced by somebody else's interest.

770
01:24:59,130 --> 01:25:05,550
That's one thing about the normative significance of that interest in purely crude welfare terms,

771
01:25:05,580 --> 01:25:09,000
loss aversion is one of the strongest psychological dispositions that we have.

772
01:25:09,000 --> 01:25:12,209
We like keeping our stuff. We don't want somebody else to swap our kids.

773
01:25:12,210 --> 01:25:17,280
Swapper. Swapper. Yeah. Even for another brain animal.

774
01:25:18,120 --> 01:25:29,460
Yeah. And that, that, that welfare effect of somebody taking our institutions is profound.

775
01:25:29,580 --> 01:25:32,309
I mean, I was thinking to the last question,

776
01:25:32,310 --> 01:25:38,830
I was thinking of the ban on food on the ground interventions in the CIA's interventions in Western European policy to.

777
01:25:38,950 --> 01:25:42,279
The more that you know that the government supporting of I guess the Christian Democrats

778
01:25:42,280 --> 01:25:46,440
and most Western Europe and that sort of intervention to create liberal states,

779
01:25:46,450 --> 01:25:53,140
arguably an improvement over over what, you know, internal communist regimes would have done.

780
01:25:53,470 --> 01:26:00,549
And yet there was something profoundly, normatively offensive, not just because of the interference with the broader path of self-determination,

781
01:26:00,550 --> 01:26:06,040
simply the fact that people's own institutions are being replaced or subverted.

782
01:26:06,790 --> 01:26:14,030
Mean, how do you account for that? You know, it's so that sort of basic welfare significance that people don't like having their own stuff replaced.

783
01:26:24,910 --> 01:26:31,690
Oh, no. In fact, you're getting an argument that from individual inviolability for Starting Point.

784
01:26:31,720 --> 01:26:35,240
One of the things that's gonna be inviolable is you'll understand.

785
01:26:35,440 --> 01:26:53,509
People don't like it. I guess you then it's well, fair trade offs and that's probably going to depend on sort of factual circumstances.

786
01:26:53,510 --> 01:27:00,320
But I think if I mean, people don't like having institutions taken away and so they've got an interest in keeping theirs and that

787
01:27:00,800 --> 01:27:07,700
pushes sort of the Liberal in favour of not inordinately favour of not intervening militarily on the river.

788
01:27:08,240 --> 01:27:11,120
But equally people have an interest in being educated,

789
01:27:11,630 --> 01:27:18,470
people have an interest in enjoying non-discrimination institutions, people have an interest in health.

790
01:27:18,680 --> 01:27:26,330
I mean, there's a whole lot of kind of the countervailing interests with potentially countervailing interests as well.

791
01:27:27,470 --> 01:27:34,620
So. What's going to depend obviously on fact to the factual details.

792
01:27:35,280 --> 01:27:43,180
But I guess sort of my feeling is that that move isn't going to.

793
01:27:45,680 --> 01:27:52,129
He's in has got to give you all that fine respect of a wide range of fairly unhappy institutions for the legal point of view,

794
01:27:52,130 --> 01:27:56,580
fairly and happy institutional orders. But maybe I'm wrong.

795
01:27:56,600 --> 01:28:00,400
I mean, I've got the intuitive weighting of the loss of version balances.

796
01:28:00,440 --> 01:28:05,210
These other institution, particularly for the Liberal, are perhaps going to deepen interests.

797
01:28:05,420 --> 01:28:12,870
And maybe my intuition is wrong. I mean, I was thinking the more in terms of the defensive privilege that I might I'm I

798
01:28:12,920 --> 01:28:16,999
will be inclined to protect against the future prospect of a better education,

799
01:28:17,000 --> 01:28:24,379
a better regimes, and that if liberalism is committed to protecting my welfare, as well as these more symbolic values.

800
01:28:24,380 --> 01:28:30,830
And so I will expect my state to mean welfare as well.

801
01:28:33,780 --> 01:28:37,360
Has been, I think, even been sort of beside him.

802
01:28:37,590 --> 01:28:42,149
I mean, it's sort of I think it's kind of Kim looking sort of the exercise of innocence,

803
01:28:42,150 --> 01:28:45,310
the significance of having institutional ownership and how they operate, meaning and so on.

804
01:28:45,780 --> 01:28:52,410
But even he's pretty holds a pretty hard line on to what extent are non,

805
01:28:52,830 --> 01:28:58,229
non-verbally or non autonomy fostering cultural institutions that are valuable and hopefully protected.

806
01:28:58,230 --> 01:29:03,780
And he's kind of pretty sceptical there know and I think it's a kind of what if a human's good

807
01:29:03,780 --> 01:29:14,969
internal reasons so I mean if you so you have to sort of think like more and more about cases I guess

808
01:29:14,970 --> 01:29:20,520
more about different I mean this he is is somewhat crude a generic sketch of liberalism is perhaps

809
01:29:21,780 --> 01:29:27,929
crossing that moving quickly over what is sort of quite significant possible in terms of him.

810
01:29:27,930 --> 01:29:34,770
And before that too you're sort of you're sort of line to get up a robust political

811
01:29:34,770 --> 01:29:38,430
debate of privilege in a range of sort of fairly clearly liberal states.

812
01:29:39,270 --> 01:29:47,640
Is these is moving quite away from the picture that we see, I think sort of in in in poverty in him, whether it's in Dworkin and so on.

813
01:29:48,180 --> 01:29:53,399
So and so. Okay, but nothing more.

814
01:29:53,400 --> 01:29:58,379
You sort of say on that, but it's like, okay, coffee break is sacred.

815
01:29:58,380 --> 01:30:02,010
So one last snapping just in response to that.

816
01:30:02,110 --> 01:30:11,069
I do want to jump in your point. But so if the point is, you know, people will suffer a lot if they realise that they have been chosen.

817
01:30:11,070 --> 01:30:21,600
These are better than when we talk about the covert sort of infiltration or affecting people's choices in a sort of covert way,

818
01:30:21,870 --> 01:30:27,570
but what it effectively. So that doesn't mean all of you in full, the CIA intervening in elections.

819
01:30:27,600 --> 01:30:33,400
Right. Because people think if people feel like they've chosen, then it's not going to affect their welfare in the way you talking about it,

820
01:30:33,420 --> 01:30:42,950
I think occurred to me as I do in those cases, what I think I mean, I think it remains a contested point.

821
01:30:42,960 --> 01:30:50,580
But an open question to the extent to which the CIA played a role in was visible the Whitlam government in Australia in 1975 and I mean covert.

822
01:30:50,580 --> 01:30:58,979
He doesn't mean like Nixon, like literally unknown, right. I mean those who are worried about that, I mean, but there's evidence around and so on.

823
01:30:58,980 --> 01:31:02,310
So successful. Okay. Yeah, right.

824
01:31:03,630 --> 01:31:09,330
Well, we will take out a general evaluation of CIA, but let's take James and.