1 00:00:00,610 --> 00:00:07,060 Any business for today. As I said, it's a great pleasure to introduce, as your father shall be known to many of you. 2 00:00:07,420 --> 00:00:16,270 She did her doctorate at this university and went to the LSC and from there she took a chair at Edinburgh University until we were very, 3 00:00:16,270 --> 00:00:20,650 very fortunate to lure her back down to Oxford. 4 00:00:20,950 --> 00:00:30,130 She doesn't regret that to me every year and maybe will later work his way very, very widely in philosophical ethics and political theory. 5 00:00:30,370 --> 00:00:36,310 And her books include such rights under the Constitution, government and the decent life you P-12. 6 00:00:36,430 --> 00:00:41,890 Whose body is it anyway? Justice and the integrity of the person of being 26. 7 00:00:42,250 --> 00:00:48,090 And Justice in a changing world. Cambridge Politics Press 2007. 8 00:00:48,100 --> 00:00:51,100 She has also written very broadly on the ethics of war. 9 00:00:51,400 --> 00:01:02,050 She flies the flag for really rigorous, insightful, analytical philosophy, despite the fact that she is, in fact, French and not any more. 10 00:01:02,440 --> 00:01:05,590 Well, well, well. I'll hand it over to CNN. 11 00:01:05,620 --> 00:01:10,420 Her title today and also very, very topical is pulling in another Syrian war. 12 00:01:10,810 --> 00:01:15,250 Thank you, David, for this lovely introduction. 13 00:01:15,490 --> 00:01:20,889 Very topical indeed. I came within a hair's breadth of giving that talk and feel very lucky. 14 00:01:20,890 --> 00:01:29,260 I didn't have to. In fact, on the morning when the French and the British were preparing to the Libya. 15 00:01:30,460 --> 00:01:35,680 So it is it is a very few weeks, you know, from that point. So it is very topical indeed. 16 00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:46,810 Now, there is a broad consensus amongst ethicists that military intervention in the affairs of another country is sometimes justified, 17 00:01:46,810 --> 00:01:54,160 particularly when the country's regime is guilty of previous human rights violations against its own population. 18 00:01:55,600 --> 00:02:06,160 So if you cast your mind back to a few weeks ago, there seemed to be some broad consensus on the views that if we were to intervene in Libya, 19 00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:13,450 the regime itself, Gadhafi's regime itself, could not claim to be wronged by the interveners. 20 00:02:13,450 --> 00:02:17,080 There might have been other reasons as to why we should go in, such as effectiveness. 21 00:02:18,430 --> 00:02:28,810 But the idea that he and his supporters had a claim not to be acted against that idea of how we confront what's really in the realm is of political, 22 00:02:29,200 --> 00:02:38,830 perhaps military circles. I'm not entirely happy with existing arguments in the philosophical literature in favour of humanitarian intervention. 23 00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:47,530 My main source of unhappiness is this that war to say something which is utterly banal, but which, like many balances, tends to be forgotten. 24 00:02:48,070 --> 00:02:49,210 War is about killing. 25 00:02:49,570 --> 00:02:59,590 So when we justify a war or military intervention, we do have to justify the ability of killing so people in their target in a community. 26 00:02:59,980 --> 00:03:09,700 My task this afternoon is to try to provide precisely such a justification for humanitarian intervention and are proceeding two steps. 27 00:03:09,700 --> 00:03:19,330 First, to defend the right to wage such a war and then to tackle some of the issues raised by killing in wars of intervention. 28 00:03:19,630 --> 00:03:23,980 Before I begin, I do need to issue two caveats or preliminary remarks. 29 00:03:23,980 --> 00:03:28,240 When you hand out I have a background definition of the war of intervention, 30 00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:33,850 which I set out yet an agent which henceforth I shall call it for intervention party 31 00:03:34,690 --> 00:03:38,470 can be described as waging a humanitarian war against the political community. 32 00:03:38,590 --> 00:03:42,940 Henceforth TPLF will target party. You and I have a number of conditions. 33 00:03:43,330 --> 00:03:52,209 It uses large scale military force against Turkey over which it has no official jurisdiction and if it uses such force without the 34 00:03:52,210 --> 00:03:59,900 consent of Turkey's regime in order to stop ongoing human rights violations by that regime and its supporters carried out against. 35 00:03:59,960 --> 00:04:09,820 So I think it's a fairly uncontroversial definition of what we mean by a rule or humanitarian intervention. 36 00:04:11,170 --> 00:04:19,120 The much more controversial bit of background, which I need to understand in before proceeding, is what I call the backroom ethics of war. 37 00:04:20,500 --> 00:04:25,450 And you summarise here. Soldiers are not morally honoured. 38 00:04:25,450 --> 00:04:29,320 Paul, I submit once the war has started, on the contrary, 39 00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:36,500 the justness of the war and the value has decisive weight when determining whether they have the right to kill enemy soldiers. 40 00:04:36,940 --> 00:04:46,060 So I need you to do a bit of explaining here. For those of you who are not not familiar with this particular debate in mainstream or just for ethics, 41 00:04:46,810 --> 00:04:53,710 it is entirely appropriate to reach the judgement that even belligerents did not have a just cause for going to war. 42 00:04:54,730 --> 00:05:00,130 So on that view, it is entirely appropriate to reach the judgement that for example. 43 00:05:00,610 --> 00:05:05,560 Germany did not have a just cause for invading Poland on the 1st of September 1939. 44 00:05:06,250 --> 00:05:10,960 Germany's war was unjust on the mainstream view. 45 00:05:10,990 --> 00:05:18,460 However, once the war has started, soldiers on opposing sides of the conflict are morally on the poor, 46 00:05:18,730 --> 00:05:23,200 in the sense that they are equally at liberty to win them over on the mainstream view. 47 00:05:23,470 --> 00:05:31,420 On the 2nd of September, 1939, German soldiers are equally at liberty to kill Polish soldiers and vice versa. 48 00:05:31,630 --> 00:05:36,280 The fact that X5 forces are in Germany does not have a justice for the war. 49 00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:46,540 The fact that Germany's invasion of Poland is rueful does not diminish the right of German soldiers to kill Polish soldiers any more. 50 00:05:47,260 --> 00:05:51,970 The fact that Poland has accepted this idea there just calls for defending itself, 51 00:05:52,330 --> 00:05:58,030 gives its soldiers, British soldiers, a greater right to defend their lives against German soldiers. 52 00:05:58,330 --> 00:06:03,820 That is the mainstream view and it is in fact the views which is enshrined in the international rules of war. 53 00:06:04,630 --> 00:06:13,360 I disagree with that view. A number of philosophers you, David, spoke of in particular have argued that, on the contrary, 54 00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:22,750 whether or not the war is just a debate has decided to wait for deciding whether or not a soldier is not at liberty to kill enemy soldiers. 55 00:06:23,140 --> 00:06:33,190 When the alternative account German soldiers precisely because Germany's invasion of Poland is lawful, I'm not at liberty to kill Polish soldiers. 56 00:06:33,550 --> 00:06:39,850 By contrast, Polish soldiers, precisely because Poland has just is in defending itself with its Germany, 57 00:06:40,150 --> 00:06:44,080 are at liberty to kill German soldiers in defence of their lives. 58 00:06:45,670 --> 00:06:53,310 On that alternative account, it is relevant for the argument for the ethics of killing in war are very closely aligned, 59 00:06:53,440 --> 00:06:57,940 as it were, to the ethics of private defensive killing. 60 00:06:58,840 --> 00:07:04,239 This is the view which I take for granted here at the start of my argument, 61 00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:11,020 and I shall come back to it in a second with this two bits of background on the table, at least as it were. 62 00:07:11,410 --> 00:07:18,100 Let me now turn to section two. When you hand over to defending the right to wage a war of humanitarian intervention. 63 00:07:20,930 --> 00:07:29,600 Because, as I've just noted, the ethics of Wal-Mart account are fairly closely aligned to the ethics of killing in private cases. 64 00:07:30,020 --> 00:07:37,100 I should like, as a preliminary step, step one, to defend the right to kill in self-defence in broad terms. 65 00:07:38,390 --> 00:07:46,220 On what grounds, if any, at all? Do agents have the right to kill other agents in self defence? 66 00:07:47,510 --> 00:07:54,379 Now the most common justifications for the right to killing self-defence are so-called agent neutral justifications. 67 00:07:54,380 --> 00:07:59,630 Unless those views the permission, the right to kill are justified by looking to facts about the attacker. 68 00:08:00,050 --> 00:08:05,120 For example, the fact that he's morally responsible for posing the threat to us, 69 00:08:05,450 --> 00:08:10,790 the fact that he poses such a threat in the first instance, should that an attacker now, 70 00:08:10,790 --> 00:08:20,569 which does seem to with the gun on which you start shooting at me on the stage of neutral justifications for submission for the right to self-defence. 71 00:08:20,570 --> 00:08:28,730 The reason why I have wanted to make you knew, Tucker, is just that he's putting a threat to me or that he's morally responsible. 72 00:08:28,850 --> 00:08:36,350 This is such a statute. It is something about him that justifies the commission to kill him. 73 00:08:36,980 --> 00:08:40,640 Now, I don't find those arguments very convincing, because in my view, 74 00:08:41,210 --> 00:08:47,870 they open up something which the feature of the situation, if you will, which I believe is absolutely crucial, 75 00:08:48,170 --> 00:08:51,530 which is that in this courtroom, as in hypothetical example, 76 00:08:51,530 --> 00:08:57,230 when you have an attacker bursting into the room shooting at me, it is my life which is at stake. 77 00:08:57,680 --> 00:09:06,500 It's not yours, it's mine. And it seems to me absolutely crucial that if you to the fact that I have a stake in my survival, 78 00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:15,230 which you lack those justifications for the permission and the right to kill in self-defence, hostile call agent relative. 79 00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:20,730 They are relative to some agents, but not necessarily to others. 80 00:09:20,750 --> 00:09:27,980 I mean, that particular case now, what it did to me to repeat it is my life, not yours, which is a mistake. 81 00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:33,110 And the reason in turn was the fact that my life is at stake. 82 00:09:33,110 --> 00:09:37,920 You may give me a permission to write strictly to talk to you. 83 00:09:37,970 --> 00:09:49,360 Is this fairly strictly? We have a personal prerogative to shop of charity, to earn interest for me to say something. 84 00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:50,990 It's for you to say to me. 85 00:09:50,990 --> 00:10:00,440 You may not kill your attacker in self-defence would be tantamount to putting you under a duty to sacrifice my life for the sake of preserving his. 86 00:10:00,680 --> 00:10:02,510 But I just think that agents generally, 87 00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:09,200 particularly agents who are not responsible in any way for the conflict between lives under a duty to sacrifice their 88 00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:16,130 interests in general and their interest in civil war in particular for the sake of protecting the life of the attacker. 89 00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:21,350 After all, he is the one bursting into the ring with a gun trying to kill me. 90 00:10:24,250 --> 00:10:28,809 It seems to me, in other words, that this particular value, 91 00:10:28,810 --> 00:10:35,620 the value of greater partiality and permissible partiality towards one's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, 92 00:10:36,010 --> 00:10:44,049 does explain why it is the case that I clearly may kill this attacker in self defence. 93 00:10:44,050 --> 00:10:51,910 It is not just the fact that he is posing a threat in general, it is the fact that he is posing a threat to me. 94 00:10:56,250 --> 00:11:01,320 How? Step two, does that apply if it does apply at all to rescue killings? 95 00:11:01,350 --> 00:11:04,620 Well, some people would argue that it doesn't apply at all. 96 00:11:04,980 --> 00:11:14,040 They would say that a relative victim, if you will, relative justifications for such defensive killing do not, in fact, work for risk. 97 00:11:14,040 --> 00:11:23,800 For killing? Why? Well, if the reason why I make you the attacker in self-defence is that it is my life which is at stake. 98 00:11:23,820 --> 00:11:30,800 It's very hard to see how that could give you the permission to kill anyone because your life is not at stake. 99 00:11:30,890 --> 00:11:36,330 You are a neutral bystander in this particular conflict. 100 00:11:38,560 --> 00:11:43,030 This objection to a relative justification for defensive killings is the 101 00:11:43,030 --> 00:11:47,770 strongest of the many objections which have been levelled against the strategy. 102 00:11:48,340 --> 00:11:54,430 The argument good partiality is over the world but you cannot justify killing in defence of others. 103 00:11:55,900 --> 00:12:02,890 I believe on the other hand that we can defend killing in defence of others, which is what I set out. 104 00:12:03,070 --> 00:12:09,040 So you shoot in step two and you hand out and the argument goes like this. 105 00:12:11,220 --> 00:12:16,420 I argued earlier that I have a special stake in my survival. 106 00:12:16,470 --> 00:12:19,920 I have a special interest in surviving the attack. 107 00:12:20,940 --> 00:12:28,320 I also suggested that the witness to me a love interest promotion is worth crossing a commission. 108 00:12:28,380 --> 00:12:31,620 Indeed, a right to claim on attacker in self-defence. 109 00:12:32,220 --> 00:12:37,670 I'm invoking here a fairly standard account of what it means to have a right. 110 00:12:38,220 --> 00:12:46,410 Well, but you have a right means that we have an interest which is important enough in most of the things imposing some 111 00:12:46,410 --> 00:12:53,160 duties before the people on that fairly standard account of interest to say that I have a right to for example, 112 00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:56,549 freedom of speech is to say that I have an interest in freedom of speech, 113 00:12:56,550 --> 00:13:06,660 which is waking up to impose also parties a duty to let you speak mutatis mutandis, to say that I have a right to kill my attacker in self-defence, 114 00:13:06,660 --> 00:13:14,220 just to say that my interest in surviving this particular attack is sufficiently important to impose on third parties, 115 00:13:14,490 --> 00:13:19,319 including the attacker himself, that you can not interfere with my self-defensive steps. 116 00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:26,220 And it is also important enough to make it morally permissible for me to protect my life in this particular way. 117 00:13:27,150 --> 00:13:32,380 Now, interests are not merely protected by limiting permissions and rights in the other house. 118 00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:37,980 They are also protected by what we call in, and that is to produce, produce for powers. 119 00:13:38,340 --> 00:13:48,750 Well, how is this what an American legal philosopher and lawyer who insisted in the seminal article, beginning of the 20th Century, 120 00:13:49,200 --> 00:13:57,569 that we should separate out powers from liberties claims powers after we interested is the ability to 121 00:13:57,570 --> 00:14:04,830 change a moral and or legal relationship to the people by giving them some of the rights and permissions. 122 00:14:05,460 --> 00:14:09,930 So to illustrate, David asking to use your quick examples at this point. 123 00:14:09,930 --> 00:14:18,200 So here is the reason I'm the illegitimate owner of that, in fact, means that I have a set of claims and permissions with respect to that pen. 124 00:14:18,480 --> 00:14:27,629 I'm permitted to write notes on my handout. I have a right against you that you do not forcibly interfere with my use of that time by, for example, 125 00:14:27,630 --> 00:14:34,980 rubbing my wrist, but my interest in disposing of disposal, which is a support to buy a power to, 126 00:14:34,980 --> 00:14:41,040 for example, give you sort of an inventory of which you would acquire all of a bespoke, 127 00:14:41,220 --> 00:14:49,350 all the rights permissions and so on, which I now have gift selling, promising, unapologetic examples of problems. 128 00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:55,170 Well, it seems to me that on the interest account, a victim is interested in surviving. 129 00:14:55,170 --> 00:14:59,640 An attacker ought to be protected, maybe by the permission to kill the attacker. 130 00:15:00,060 --> 00:15:07,980 Indeed, not really got a right to continue to have some firepower to transfer to potential rescuers that very same foolish. 131 00:15:08,500 --> 00:15:18,120 Right. So if you go back to the other example, if an attacker bursts into the room armed with a gun and starts shooting at me, 132 00:15:18,450 --> 00:15:25,560 my interest in my survival is protected not only by the permission given to me to harm the attacker, 133 00:15:25,980 --> 00:15:30,180 but also by a power to transfer to David my permission and my right. 134 00:15:30,180 --> 00:15:36,660 You can't be my own defence should I become unable to defend my own life? 135 00:15:40,330 --> 00:15:48,460 I summarised the claim on the handout towards the bottom of page one, paragraph two in section two, 136 00:15:48,850 --> 00:15:53,350 the victim's interests in protecting her fundamental interests against culpable attackers, 137 00:15:53,860 --> 00:16:00,410 not always protected by the right to kill the attacker, which imposes on the agents a duty not to intervene on his behalf. 138 00:16:00,430 --> 00:16:06,729 It is also protected by the power to transfer that right to potential rescues so 139 00:16:06,730 --> 00:16:11,710 that they too acquire the right to kill the attacker on behalf of the victim. 140 00:16:12,250 --> 00:16:19,450 And this, I think, is quite a appealing way of understanding the right to wage a war of intervention. 141 00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:26,740 Step three Assume that some members of the political community in are victims of civil rights, 142 00:16:26,740 --> 00:16:33,250 violations of a kind which to use the standard tries to shock the conscience of mankind, 143 00:16:33,820 --> 00:16:44,140 either at the hands of the envisioned law, on the hands of a community within the country against which the regime is powerless and willing to act. 144 00:16:44,860 --> 00:16:50,709 Those individuals have the premier fishing right to kill the attackers in their defence and 145 00:16:50,710 --> 00:16:58,540 the prime of his power to authorise potential interveners to wage war on their behalf. 146 00:17:02,230 --> 00:17:10,510 And that, it seems to me, is how best to understand what it means to have a right to wage a war of intervention. 147 00:17:10,540 --> 00:17:18,790 It is the right the intervening parties have been given by the victims of the regime against which we are intervening in the issue of a power. 148 00:17:19,120 --> 00:17:22,740 You know, I stress that point. 149 00:17:22,750 --> 00:17:28,060 Perhaps you know too much, but I think it is worth stressing them because it poses the problem of consent 150 00:17:28,520 --> 00:17:35,200 in quite a second ways that fall on you when you hand out the justification, 151 00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:39,730 which I have just given over of the account, which I have just given for the right to withdraw. 152 00:17:40,150 --> 00:17:45,700 Intervention does seem to imply that the victims consent to the intervention is required for 153 00:17:45,700 --> 00:17:53,230 the intervention to be just seems there can be in general no authorisation without consent. 154 00:17:54,450 --> 00:17:58,359 Now the proof makes perfect sense in 1 to 1 killings. 155 00:17:58,360 --> 00:18:09,130 If I, without my consent to David's putative risk to me against my cousin David, may not intervene on my behalf. 156 00:18:09,850 --> 00:18:15,820 And indeed, scholars have written a humanitarian intervention quote from insists that the consent of the victims. 157 00:18:16,810 --> 00:18:21,940 So in the case of Libya, the consent of the civilian populations under threat, the hands of Gadhafi. 158 00:18:22,630 --> 00:18:27,910 Then consent is required before the intervention cannot legitimately take place. 159 00:18:30,130 --> 00:18:31,900 Now, the crucial question here, it seems to me, 160 00:18:31,900 --> 00:18:41,650 is whether we should require explicit consent in the case of a war of intervention before you go in, or whether presumptive consent suffices. 161 00:18:42,650 --> 00:18:46,180 And it seems to me that insisting on explicit consent will be far too demanding, 162 00:18:47,350 --> 00:18:54,190 if only because it would deprive of protection individuals who are not in a position to give their consent in the first instance. 163 00:18:55,270 --> 00:19:01,809 And the problem is particularly salient in humanitarian conflicts with victims are often very young children, 164 00:19:01,810 --> 00:19:07,270 individuals who are utterly powerless and not morally able to give or without consent, 165 00:19:07,270 --> 00:19:16,200 or indeed individuals who are subject to such severe hardship that they do not have the means physical, 166 00:19:16,210 --> 00:19:20,290 psychological material to make themselves heard. 167 00:19:21,250 --> 00:19:28,090 It seems natural, therefore, to claim that as long as the intervening party has good reasons to presume that 168 00:19:28,090 --> 00:19:32,740 victims would consult with intervention if they were in a position to do so, 169 00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:41,650 then it may act as if those victims had explicitly or surmised it to put a stop to the rights violations. 170 00:19:43,420 --> 00:19:52,450 The argument that I'm putting forward here, which I will have to return to later on this afternoon, is not in any way which I do at all. 171 00:19:52,480 --> 00:19:57,580 It's so funny because they mirrored all arguments about consent in medical ethics. 172 00:19:59,170 --> 00:20:03,910 It is true that we generally require the explicit consent of patients before the authority to bomb. 173 00:20:04,420 --> 00:20:08,709 But if one of you were to collapse, become unconscious at some point, 174 00:20:08,710 --> 00:20:12,460 and if we were to call the numbers and the evidence were to take you to the hospital, 175 00:20:12,460 --> 00:20:17,140 and if you were not able to regain consciousness before being wheeled to the person table, 176 00:20:17,320 --> 00:20:22,600 doctors would act on this notion that you would actually sign the form consenting to their permission. 177 00:20:22,930 --> 00:20:33,040 You know, if you were in a position to reason to recap briefly before getting to the, as it were, a little bit of killing. 178 00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:39,310 I have argued that victims of human rights violations at the hands of the regime's sometimes have the 179 00:20:39,310 --> 00:20:48,280 rights to kill the attackers in self-defence and the power to transfer that right to intervening parties. 180 00:20:51,170 --> 00:20:57,530 But we cannot conclude that a humanitarian intervention which satisfies these conditions is justified 181 00:20:58,790 --> 00:21:05,030 until we have looked a little bit more deeply at the ethics of killing in humanitarian forms. 182 00:21:09,140 --> 00:21:13,460 Let me introductory the size, as it were. 183 00:21:15,590 --> 00:21:18,829 Let me just say what I think is particularly going in the wrong. 184 00:21:18,830 --> 00:21:23,990 About three years ago, we were all in this subject about whether or not the intervention in Libya was justified. 185 00:21:24,590 --> 00:21:28,940 And, you know, one of the features of that debate, which I thought was fascinating, 186 00:21:28,940 --> 00:21:37,120 was that the squeamishness, to put it philosophically, which greeted the objection, 187 00:21:37,310 --> 00:21:45,290 the suggestion that Colonel Gadhafi might be a legitimate target and that what you hear that some people would say was he's a legitimate target. 188 00:21:45,290 --> 00:21:54,710 He's the head of forces for all that we do. But I people are saying, no, you can't say that Gadhafi is a legitimate target. 189 00:21:55,610 --> 00:22:00,560 It's just wrong to kill those people in that very way. 190 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:08,510 I didn't detect that squeamishness in the last 24 hours, especially when we had the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed. 191 00:22:09,350 --> 00:22:15,709 We could talk about that later. But the fact that quite a number of people were reluctant openly to say, oh, my God, 192 00:22:15,710 --> 00:22:22,070 I feel monstrous because this is a legitimate target that some people were reluctant to read. 193 00:22:22,070 --> 00:22:31,700 That verdict suggests to me that there is something quite problematic about the act of killing in a war of intervention, humanitarian intervention. 194 00:22:32,420 --> 00:22:34,910 I do believe, however, section three on the handout, 195 00:22:35,330 --> 00:22:44,510 but a great number of acts of killing are justified in such wars, beginning with killing combatants, section 3.10. 196 00:22:44,510 --> 00:22:51,270 And you forestall your question. And I do believe that under certain conditions, criminal Gadhafi is a legitimate target in that war. 197 00:22:51,290 --> 00:22:55,100 So but I feel my cards on the table, you know, quite clearly here. 198 00:22:55,820 --> 00:23:05,510 But let us first look at killing combatants. Now, there is an easy case, which is this combatants in the target party who take part in atrocities. 199 00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:12,350 So pretty much exactly how you might hear is the case of a huge, huge incident, 200 00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:22,340 which in 1992, not only 1994, but probably 1994, eviscerated the victims with screwdrivers, 201 00:23:22,580 --> 00:23:32,209 you know, kill innocent children with shootings, also whose, you know, there was committed atrocities in the context of the war and and genocide. 202 00:23:32,210 --> 00:23:39,830 I don't think there was any difficulty at all in saying that those wrongdoers clearly are liable to being killed. 203 00:23:40,020 --> 00:23:48,140 You know, in the case in the course of the war or intervention, there is a lot of case turning over to page two on your handout. 204 00:23:50,330 --> 00:23:59,870 And this is a case of, you know, combatants who do not take part in atrocities, but who resist the intervention by force and we kill them. 205 00:24:00,080 --> 00:24:10,670 So you have to imagine a scenario, let's say Rwanda, as a as an example of an intervention which took place but perhaps should have taken place. 206 00:24:10,670 --> 00:24:17,210 And you have to imagine a scenario where you have some who are carrying out, you know, acts of genocide. 207 00:24:17,540 --> 00:24:24,379 Imagine that the U.N. had sent some forces, and those forces, as they were making their way to surrender, 208 00:24:24,380 --> 00:24:30,740 have been met with hostile fire on the part, not to this genocidal militias themselves, 209 00:24:30,740 --> 00:24:39,740 but on the part of regular members of the Rwandan army who, when not defending some people, will argue their genocidal colleagues, 210 00:24:39,740 --> 00:24:45,890 as it were, but who were defending the homeland, the homes, you know, from the intervening forces. 211 00:24:47,900 --> 00:24:50,719 Now, there is a rather prevalent argument in the literature, 212 00:24:50,720 --> 00:24:56,570 which is that the role of humanitarian intervention should really be understood like a police operation, 213 00:24:57,770 --> 00:25:00,810 so that intervening soldiers treating this has greater restraint. 214 00:25:00,830 --> 00:25:07,700 These are those combatants of the target party who are regular combatants who do not take part in the acts 215 00:25:07,700 --> 00:25:16,880 of genocide than it would if that intervening party waging a tradition of self-defence against an aggressor. 216 00:25:18,380 --> 00:25:26,780 So the idea really is this in a war of intervention, we do have to distinguish between those which commit this, who commit atrocities, 217 00:25:27,410 --> 00:25:35,900 which give us a reason for intervening in the first instance and those who simply block the advance of the intervening policy. 218 00:25:37,580 --> 00:25:42,630 Again, you know, the decision that is drawn here is sometimes drawn in the context of the Second World War. 219 00:25:42,650 --> 00:25:49,100 Some people argue that there really was a difference between the Waffen SS, you know, on the one hand those who were actually killing Jews. 220 00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:50,580 You know what? 221 00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:59,140 And on the other hand, you know, regular members of the government who were not committing atrocities and many of whom in fact, most couldn't abide. 222 00:25:59,590 --> 00:26:07,000 You know, the S.S., I find it extremely unconvincing for three reasons. 223 00:26:09,660 --> 00:26:16,770 That is, I find it in convincing to say that there is an important difference between war, humanitarian intervention on the one hand, 224 00:26:17,160 --> 00:26:20,370 and a traditional war of self-defence against aggression on the other hand, 225 00:26:20,670 --> 00:26:27,180 whereby we should exercise greater restraints against regular conduct in some form of place than we normally do. 226 00:26:27,750 --> 00:26:37,780 You know, in the latter case, first of all, there is a requirement of restraint in traditional wars as well in traditional wars as well. 227 00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:44,160 We are permitted to use only such forces is necessary for the achievement of all arms. 228 00:26:44,880 --> 00:26:48,390 There is no reason to distinguish in that respect between wars of humanitarian 229 00:26:48,390 --> 00:26:53,130 intervention on the one hand and wars of national self-defence on the other hand. 230 00:26:54,780 --> 00:27:03,450 Moreover, of ensuring that the target regime is no longer in a position to commit atrocities against its members in the future, 231 00:27:03,450 --> 00:27:08,339 May one require a comprehensive military victory over it, and that, in turn, 232 00:27:08,340 --> 00:27:14,190 could only be secured by killing its soldiers, as we would in a conventional war. 233 00:27:17,130 --> 00:27:20,520 And finally, those combatants, 234 00:27:20,520 --> 00:27:25,829 those regular combatants of the target party who admittedly are not committing 235 00:27:25,830 --> 00:27:30,570 atrocities but nevertheless are opposing thwarting the intervening forces. 236 00:27:30,810 --> 00:27:34,350 Those combatants are unjust combatants anyway. 237 00:27:35,730 --> 00:27:40,800 They contribute to posing a threat to intervening soldiers. 238 00:27:40,830 --> 00:27:50,070 So let me construct an argument by analogy. It's the argument from the torture rape case. 239 00:27:50,490 --> 00:28:04,890 To put it bluntly, imagine that only do it is torturing raping a victim somewhere in locked in a warehouse. 240 00:28:06,300 --> 00:28:10,980 Imagine that he has posted an accomplice at the door of the warehouse. 241 00:28:11,250 --> 00:28:20,970 When the police shows up, weapons from the accomplice toss, who is not himself taking part in the rape and the torture. 242 00:28:21,120 --> 00:28:25,560 They to start shooting for the police in order to prevent the first woman to ring the warehouse. 243 00:28:25,710 --> 00:28:33,260 I find it bizarre. You know, you say that we should exercise greater restraint against the accomplice in that particular case. 244 00:28:33,270 --> 00:28:37,049 He's not he's not raping the victim himself. 245 00:28:37,050 --> 00:28:41,190 He's an accomplice in that particular. Right. And he's, moreover, 246 00:28:41,190 --> 00:28:49,050 subjecting the police officers to a work force with a result shooting at them in order to prevent them from entering the White House. 247 00:28:49,260 --> 00:28:51,570 And it seems to me that the more status, if you will, 248 00:28:51,870 --> 00:29:01,380 of regular members of a target army is similar to them on the status of the accomplice in that particular domestic case. 249 00:29:01,890 --> 00:29:07,940 Those combatants are liable as accomplices to those atrocities and as attackers. 250 00:29:07,950 --> 00:29:17,210 These are just interveners. This is all quite easy, really. 251 00:29:17,300 --> 00:29:26,330 It is quite easy to show. It seems to me why those different kinds of combatants can be killed permissible in a war of intervention. 252 00:29:26,540 --> 00:29:31,490 The serious difficulty arises with the issue of collateral damage. 253 00:29:31,610 --> 00:29:42,709 Section 3.2 When you head out. I said earlier that the intervening party must have good evidence that its war of intervention 254 00:29:42,710 --> 00:29:48,980 will be welcomed by those whom it is meant to benefit the victims of the target regime. 255 00:29:49,970 --> 00:29:57,890 Now, I think that the claim is all the stronger for the fact that although the war will benefit many of those victims, 256 00:29:58,190 --> 00:30:03,020 they were also inevitably home injured, killed, you know, some of them. 257 00:30:06,460 --> 00:30:12,910 And that quote highlights, I think, a very important difference between 1 to 1 cases of risk killing and humanitarian war. 258 00:30:14,410 --> 00:30:22,780 In 1 to 1 cases, a risk of killing we can safely, fairly safe, can assume that the victim will survive the rescuers killing the attacker. 259 00:30:24,280 --> 00:30:26,310 But in a case of humanitarian, Wolf, 260 00:30:26,410 --> 00:30:34,240 many non-combatants on his behalf and where U.S. intervention is carried out will die as collateral damage to the intervening parties, 261 00:30:34,570 --> 00:30:42,129 military missions. And so any account of the right to intervene must attach to the harms which the 262 00:30:42,130 --> 00:30:48,100 intervening party would inevitably impose on the interventions intended beneficiaries. 263 00:30:49,210 --> 00:30:54,280 And this is what I would like to talk about in the remainder of the talk, 264 00:30:54,550 --> 00:31:02,770 and I must first make a point of clarification by distinguishing between the permission to kill versus the right to kill. 265 00:31:04,310 --> 00:31:13,030 Do you say that access the right to kill war is to imply that war is a duty not to retaliate against acts in its own defence? 266 00:31:13,810 --> 00:31:18,790 So go back to the case of the attacker earlier who erupts in group and starts shooting at me, 267 00:31:19,120 --> 00:31:22,959 who said that I have the right to kill this particular attacker in self-defence 268 00:31:22,960 --> 00:31:27,580 is to say not merely that you are under a duty not to interfere with me, 269 00:31:27,580 --> 00:31:32,650 not to prevent me from killing him, but also that he must desist immediately. 270 00:31:33,700 --> 00:31:41,290 The mere fact that I start shooting at him and in so doing threatens a knife, does not give him permission to defend his own life. 271 00:31:42,910 --> 00:31:48,400 That is what we mean in the relevant literature by the right to kill in self-defence. 272 00:31:49,090 --> 00:31:56,770 The permission to kill is very different. When we say that X is morally permitted but lacks the right to kill. 273 00:31:56,800 --> 00:32:01,810 Why? We imply that X is not under a duty not to retaliate. 274 00:32:03,070 --> 00:32:06,610 And so what we mean in this case is this. Suppose you wait. 275 00:32:06,610 --> 00:32:13,720 You say just the fact I may kill the attacker within walking distance of what you do. 276 00:32:13,730 --> 00:32:26,050 It doesn't make do it. We won't imply that he's not under a duty to do this, that he may, in turn defend his own life against my self-defence. 277 00:32:27,760 --> 00:32:32,470 So hold that thought for now, because it would prove important in the couple of minutes. 278 00:32:34,900 --> 00:32:38,980 You remember that when you come to risk for killing, don't you? 279 00:32:39,310 --> 00:32:46,330 The claim that there is a right in there to intervene. Proceeds from the claim that victims of attackers have the right to kill in self-defence. 280 00:32:46,330 --> 00:32:58,569 And your call for outside help. We are here imagining cases where in turning forces in the course of carrying out the intervention with no 281 00:32:58,570 --> 00:33:05,160 intention of even necessarily killing some of the civilians on whose behalf the intervention is pulled. 282 00:33:06,310 --> 00:33:12,310 So to claim that to ask whether interveners have the right to kill some of those victims, 283 00:33:12,310 --> 00:33:16,780 which could be to in the course of the war for the sake of all the victims. 284 00:33:16,780 --> 00:33:22,269 V one is that amount to asking whether the victims of a genocidal tyrant have a right 285 00:33:22,270 --> 00:33:29,080 to kill fellow victims in self-defence and who call on outsiders to help as well. 286 00:33:31,980 --> 00:33:40,920 Suppose that we have the attack of erupting into one Missouri shooting, at least shooting several of us along the route. 287 00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:45,449 Suppose I keep using it as a prop in my story. 288 00:33:45,450 --> 00:33:51,700 Suppose that if it was not himself at the moment of the threat is in a position to neutralise the attacker. 289 00:33:52,230 --> 00:33:59,850 But in so doing, he would kill some of us, inevitably as collateral damage to his rescue mission. 290 00:34:00,480 --> 00:34:05,910 Do you ask whether David has the right? So to us to answer these, in fact, 291 00:34:05,910 --> 00:34:15,480 you ask whether we are under threat or shall have the right to shoot some of us as collateral damage in order to block the attack. 292 00:34:17,760 --> 00:34:20,219 Suppose that I had gone into the room. 293 00:34:20,220 --> 00:34:27,000 The only way in which I can see lie in the life of some of you is a team from such an animal that others of you would die. 294 00:34:27,840 --> 00:34:35,700 Do I have the voice? Can you produce it? That is what we are asking where we ask whether intervening parties have the right to 295 00:34:35,700 --> 00:34:41,340 inflict collateral damage on some of the intended beneficiaries of the intervention. 296 00:34:43,680 --> 00:34:51,270 I don't think, in fact, that there is such a thing as a right to kill innocent civilians, whether deliberately or not. 297 00:34:52,410 --> 00:34:55,590 Would you say that there is a right to kill innocent civilians? Extremely high. 298 00:34:55,590 --> 00:35:01,910 The various innocent civilians themselves welcome the duty not to tell you. 299 00:35:02,370 --> 00:35:06,930 Do you say that I have the right to fire at the attacker in such a way that some of you will die? 300 00:35:07,200 --> 00:35:13,980 Is to say that those of you who would die in the process are under a duty not to protect your life. 301 00:35:15,930 --> 00:35:22,709 In the course of the attack. And what I think is wrong, I pointed out at the very, very beginning of it all, 302 00:35:22,710 --> 00:35:33,320 the fair grounds upon which we are permitted to give greater interest was a waste to our interest and to the interest of others. 303 00:35:33,330 --> 00:35:39,480 And it seems to me that you can be exceptionally demanding, since you ask of people innocent, 304 00:35:40,530 --> 00:35:45,540 that they sacrificed their lives for the sake of other innocent people. 305 00:35:47,040 --> 00:35:55,499 What I do believe, however, is that victims are sometimes justified or permitted to act in such a way that 306 00:35:55,500 --> 00:36:02,220 other innocent people will die in the course of the self-defensive move. 307 00:36:05,030 --> 00:36:07,669 For the same reason that I've just highlighted. 308 00:36:07,670 --> 00:36:14,750 To claim otherwise is to claim that those victims are under a duty to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the victims. 309 00:36:16,930 --> 00:36:19,020 Here is the picture that I have in mind here. 310 00:36:19,030 --> 00:36:26,169 It seems to me that, you know, some people sometimes address the Patriot Act in such a way as to kill forcibly, 311 00:36:26,170 --> 00:36:32,950 though not intentionally over, you know, innocent people at the bar of partiality at the bottom of the sword, if you will. 312 00:36:32,950 --> 00:36:36,879 But sometimes hard to be permitted to come forward to wait for no interest, 313 00:36:36,880 --> 00:36:42,490 particularly interest and survival done on other people's, you know, similar interests. 314 00:36:45,140 --> 00:36:53,300 This issue of issue one said to victims by parish reasoning, it is also the case of another set of victims. 315 00:36:54,470 --> 00:36:58,520 In other words, let's go back to Libya, for example, as an example, 316 00:36:58,520 --> 00:37:06,710 if it is indeed the case that the set of victims of Samir Gadhafi and his regime are permitted 317 00:37:07,130 --> 00:37:14,600 to kill collaterally Oswald and the victims in defence of that one life in the course of.