1
00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:08,370
Welcome to our afternoon session. Paid for by Professor Christopher, whose respondent is Dr. Michael Rakoff.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:10,400
And I think you should just get started.

3
00:00:10,820 --> 00:00:22,430
So first, thank you very much to welcome to the South and to the two other people, to David and the two other people's names.

4
00:00:22,430 --> 00:00:27,070
I'm forgetting now who are worthy you like directors and to the hospitality of

5
00:00:27,770 --> 00:00:33,020
of Oxford and thank you for your indulgence or what I hope was your indulgence.

6
00:00:33,020 --> 00:00:38,660
And in an exercise, in thinking out loud or thinking in public, which probably ought to be discouraged,

7
00:00:39,170 --> 00:00:45,740
this is a this paper is a beginning of an introduction to a book.

8
00:00:45,810 --> 00:00:50,930
I'm trying to finish this year on democracy and war.

9
00:00:51,290 --> 00:00:54,649
And I found I was just chatting about this at lunch.

10
00:00:54,650 --> 00:01:02,360
I found and maybe as I move through the arc of a philosophical career, I become more and more beset by questions of methodology.

11
00:01:02,630 --> 00:01:12,290
That confidence I had in particular ways of framing problems, and particularly more kind of axiomatic approaches to problems, has waned over time.

12
00:01:12,290 --> 00:01:20,749
And this paper was a way of picking a particular topic and trying to nibble a little more around the edges of some of these methodological questions,

13
00:01:20,750 --> 00:01:27,319
in particular the relation between, in a sense, the kind of the verdicts of history,

14
00:01:27,320 --> 00:01:35,149
the kind of the sociological legitimation of collective violence and what moral philosophy and I think sort of intuition,

15
00:01:35,150 --> 00:01:44,900
pump type examples bring to us that discrepancy between the ways in which we forget violence, we forget it at the roots of our national histories.

16
00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:53,480
We forget it in relation to wars. The wars come to seem assumptions that the discrepancy between the ideal theory of philosophy and the realism

17
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:59,360
of war is something I've been thinking about for a long time and then unwilling to accept the answer.

18
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:01,790
And I was told myself at the beginning of that philosophical career,

19
00:02:01,790 --> 00:02:06,619
which is that philosophy should do what philosophers should do, say things, say we, that things ought to be,

20
00:02:06,620 --> 00:02:15,380
and let the world take note and become convinced that we need a more complicated relationship than that and the papers and have to think about that,

21
00:02:16,590 --> 00:02:24,770
but not terribly successfully. I'm South also asked me to say a word about how the [INAUDIBLE] a paper about yes post bellum found its way into

22
00:02:24,780 --> 00:02:32,959
a UCI bellum conference and it came in part from not paying too much attention to the theme of the conference.

23
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:36,500
Apart from the title Why We Fight? Why do we fight?

24
00:02:36,500 --> 00:02:44,629
We fight to win. What do we want to do when we win? Well, that was the question I gave myself, but there is also quite an obvious connection.

25
00:02:44,630 --> 00:02:51,709
It and it's the one that I refer to the the Gary Bass article from a couple of years ago that he highlights that an unjust

26
00:02:51,710 --> 00:02:59,660
peace will vitiate an otherwise just war and that we need to I think this is right by taking a different direction the best.

27
00:02:59,930 --> 00:03:08,180
I think we need to think about what the rights of victory are in order to argue back to what can be a just motivation for war.

28
00:03:08,390 --> 00:03:12,170
Because if in fact the rights of the victor are extremely limited,

29
00:03:12,470 --> 00:03:20,840
then it's hard to it's hard to justify the waging of war as a device for securing deterrence, remaking institutions and the like.

30
00:03:21,830 --> 00:03:26,990
The end of the paper ends.

31
00:03:27,650 --> 00:03:36,920
So the paper moves through a number of ways of imagining how one might justify the rights of the victor.

32
00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:45,260
Now, the rights of the so the rights of the victor within international law have been constrained dramatically over, you know, over history.

33
00:03:45,770 --> 00:03:58,009
But there's still we've moved past a right of the pillar trade and and revenge towards well, I think we still have revenge but but towards still,

34
00:03:58,010 --> 00:04:06,050
I think quite profound rights to reshape political institutions and that it's really that core right of the victor to reshape political institutions,

35
00:04:06,740 --> 00:04:09,680
which is, for me, the problem of justification.

36
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:20,450
I try to consider a number of approaches to that problem and end up, I think oscillating between to the conclusion is not conclusory.

37
00:04:20,690 --> 00:04:26,320
The conclusion of the paper is that we can think of two different approaches to different ways that might be successful.

38
00:04:26,330 --> 00:04:35,420
Justifying this one is simply a duty to make sure that a people is governed, and if the victorious nation is the nation with the resources to do so,

39
00:04:35,420 --> 00:04:40,490
then it has a right that extends no further than it's duty to not leave people.

40
00:04:41,570 --> 00:04:45,560
It is vanquished in conditions of anarchy. That's one consideration.

41
00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:55,370
The second one is an attempt to still play out this thought I have that the political violence has.

42
00:04:55,910 --> 00:05:00,790
We have to think about it in a somewhat different way that we have to recognise the relation to.

43
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,390
Violence, the way violence and the creation of new regimes.

44
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:12,559
We have to in some sense acknowledge that violence lies at the heart of the emergence of almost all political

45
00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:17,750
regimes and to see victorious nations not as enjoying something that we would describe as a right.

46
00:05:18,530 --> 00:05:25,790
There's no clear moral justification for what they do, but nonetheless, occupying a kind of grey zone,

47
00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:33,590
of grey zone in which there's a kind of frank acknowledgement that this is how politics happens.

48
00:05:34,490 --> 00:05:40,280
I'm treading in that suggestion over a paper I wrote a few years ago trying to deal with it.

49
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:45,020
You know, the ticking time bomb question about how one thinks about supreme emergency

50
00:05:45,020 --> 00:05:49,190
cases and justifications in these cases and in that other and that other paper,

51
00:05:49,790 --> 00:05:51,290
which I think I cite here and that other paper,

52
00:05:51,290 --> 00:05:56,530
I end up at a somewhat similar position, which is that it's hard to have confidence in moral principles,

53
00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:04,250
the extension of moral principles to these cases, for obvious reasons, they seem more like singularity is in our thought.

54
00:06:04,550 --> 00:06:08,450
It's hard to justify. It's hard to justify the torture.

55
00:06:08,540 --> 00:06:15,679
It's important to justify the torture. And yet there also seems to be something about the kind of the de facto history of the case,

56
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:22,550
that the choice that has to be made and that puts it in some different kind of normative space.

57
00:06:23,090 --> 00:06:24,200
I'm starting to babble here,

58
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:33,499
but the the I think there is a similar I'm intrigued by the thought that there's a similar kind of singularity in these moments of

59
00:06:33,500 --> 00:06:40,550
regime change where we've lost the baseline for evaluating transformations to property in the case of some kinds of revolutions,

60
00:06:40,700 --> 00:06:43,069
transformation and, and violence and others,

61
00:06:43,070 --> 00:06:51,710
that we we need a different set of ethical principles to examine these kinds of cases than we're used to in in the cases of interpersonal morality.

62
00:06:52,430 --> 00:06:58,759
So sorry. That's kind of spewing a lot of the thoughts of the paper into into the audience.

63
00:06:58,760 --> 00:07:02,060
And maybe Massimo can help clean them up and tell me what I thought.

64
00:07:05,870 --> 00:07:10,970
All right. Well, thanks to you like and thanks to seven in particular for putting together such a great insight and for inviting me.

65
00:07:12,440 --> 00:07:17,839
And thanks to Chris for such a great paper. So good.

66
00:07:17,840 --> 00:07:24,380
The paper focuses on an interesting question of useful spell, namely the question of the justification of the rights of victors.

67
00:07:25,250 --> 00:07:30,470
These rights include things such as free drawing of territorial boundaries, relocations of populations,

68
00:07:30,530 --> 00:07:35,989
seizure and redistribution of property, imposition of reparative payments, punishment of leaders and officials.

69
00:07:35,990 --> 00:07:42,210
And so. And good question is, what is the justification for for these rights?

70
00:07:42,300 --> 00:07:47,490
And this is an important question, he suggests, because if the requirement of this post bellum are not met,

71
00:07:48,090 --> 00:07:52,740
the war will be unjust, in spite of the fact that the requirements of user bedroom and using by law met.

72
00:07:54,030 --> 00:07:58,080
So there are of proportionality that the peace must meet in order for the war to be justified.

73
00:07:59,650 --> 00:08:03,250
So what is it that justifies the victory of states rights to interfere with the sovereignty

74
00:08:03,250 --> 00:08:08,320
of the defeated state in order to reshape its political institutions and punish its members?

75
00:08:08,550 --> 00:08:18,430
So there are two extreme answers. One is the difference, according to this view of victors acquire no rights by the fact that they won.

76
00:08:18,790 --> 00:08:23,499
All they have are the rights that they originally had before the war started and

77
00:08:23,500 --> 00:08:27,760
the right to acquire because of the wrongful acts committed by the losing state.

78
00:08:28,300 --> 00:08:35,680
So here, victory makes no normative difference and puts reject this view because at odds with how we normally understand the rights of victims,

79
00:08:35,680 --> 00:08:40,299
we normally think that because to acquire a limited right to govern the internal

80
00:08:40,300 --> 00:08:45,310
matters of the of the losing state and on the other on the other end of the spectrum,

81
00:08:45,310 --> 00:08:55,540
there is the the motive that says the victors acquire a complete right, so the victors become sovereign over the territory of the losing state.

82
00:08:56,110 --> 00:09:00,849
So on this view, basically they can do whatever they want or do on that,

83
00:09:00,850 --> 00:09:07,989
on some of some other versions of the law that there are constrained by national duties of justice and could reject plausibly.

84
00:09:07,990 --> 00:09:14,800
I think this view as well as an instance of the view that might makes right of you that and is the notion of rights of substantive good.

85
00:09:15,790 --> 00:09:21,400
Now, in between these two extremes, there are a series of other views that he focuses on in this paper.

86
00:09:23,260 --> 00:09:27,430
The first group is what he called the epistemic foundations of the right of the victorious state.

87
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:33,850
Now, leaving aside the strong theological interpretation of this view, there seem to be two formulations.

88
00:09:34,330 --> 00:09:39,550
One says that victory reveals which state was right before the beginning of the war.

89
00:09:42,220 --> 00:09:44,080
So the victor, the right of the victors,

90
00:09:44,080 --> 00:09:50,170
is grounded in the fact that the fact that they won the war shows reveals that they were right in fighting the war.

91
00:09:50,980 --> 00:09:55,360
And there is a second formulation of this of this epistemic view that says

92
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:59,140
that there is no straightforward answer to the question which state was right?

93
00:09:59,530 --> 00:10:02,290
But what is the decision procedure that determines that?

94
00:10:03,100 --> 00:10:10,749
And because it's sympathetic to some extent, at least with this view, he says, it's often more important simply to decide than to decide,

95
00:10:10,750 --> 00:10:15,580
rightly, given that the conflict about who's right in many cases will have negative consequences.

96
00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:21,130
So given that establishing the NTC, the rights of the parties is harder than we normally think,

97
00:10:21,580 --> 00:10:26,410
it is not implausible to think that war and my function as the decision procedure to establish was right,

98
00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:30,610
at least when we lacked better decision procedures, for example, in international court.

99
00:10:31,330 --> 00:10:33,640
So let's try to get back to this later. There's time.

100
00:10:33,730 --> 00:10:41,420
But I want to focus on the what he calls the substantive foundations of the right of of the Victory State and the three formulations of these people,

101
00:10:42,910 --> 00:10:44,680
the victor's right to govern over the state,

102
00:10:44,680 --> 00:10:53,240
the lost the war can be grounded in the right to deter future aggression by that state or by other states or.

103
00:10:53,260 --> 00:10:57,430
And this is a second variant of this view by the right to punish the wrongdoer.

104
00:10:58,630 --> 00:11:06,370
The second view says that the victor's right is grounded on the right to establish a superior mode of political life on the vanquished,

105
00:11:06,820 --> 00:11:12,340
and that there's a third view that says that the victors right is grounded on the right to implement the natural duties of justice.

106
00:11:12,970 --> 00:11:18,910
So, for example, to disagree stole a governing authority in the Territory to ensure rule of law.

107
00:11:20,850 --> 00:11:28,710
Now Coots is sympathetic to the first few, at least in the formulation that focuses on deterrence, not the one that focuses on punishment.

108
00:11:30,270 --> 00:11:33,569
Since he would be to the advantage of all states to reduce the number of wars,

109
00:11:33,570 --> 00:11:38,430
the victorious state acquires the right to do things such as punishing leaders or reducing the military capability

110
00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:43,820
of the vanquished in order to deter the aggressor state as well as other states for future aggression.

111
00:11:43,830 --> 00:11:49,080
And of course, you know, these. Right must be balanced with respect for national service, emulation of the state.

112
00:11:49,080 --> 00:11:55,080
The lost. If I understand, is also sympathetic, at least to some extent, with the second to the second view.

113
00:11:56,040 --> 00:12:03,239
Once the conqueror status forfeited its ordinary presumption against interference through aggression, victors may have not only the right,

114
00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:09,300
but also the duty to reshape the conquered state and, where possible, establish a superior mode of political life.

115
00:12:09,870 --> 00:12:13,230
And of course, there are obvious risks here that could signal.

116
00:12:15,180 --> 00:12:19,570
What about the third view? What? The third view is at least one interpretation, a weak version of the second.

117
00:12:19,620 --> 00:12:26,760
So in a sense is less controversial, given the dangers incurred by those living in a territory with no functioning political institutions.

118
00:12:27,120 --> 00:12:32,400
Leaders plausibly have a duty to install some form of government to ensure that these dangers are prevented.

119
00:12:33,540 --> 00:12:36,940
Now notice that this third view is completely independent from the use of balance,

120
00:12:37,110 --> 00:12:43,490
and the courts acknowledges this in that it equally applies to whoever wins, whether it is the aggressing or the defending country.

121
00:12:44,190 --> 00:12:50,070
So a state responsible for moving in a just war would have the duty not to leave the losing state without a government.

122
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:54,479
And so for this reason, the third view does grant some duties.

123
00:12:54,480 --> 00:12:59,670
But these duties are grounds for humanitarian intervention, but not not a basis for legitimacy.

124
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:08,910
So let me let me start with the substantive foundations of the rights of the victims, and in particular with the terraces.

125
00:13:08,910 --> 00:13:12,300
I think that this is the foundation that could seem to consider less controversial,

126
00:13:13,800 --> 00:13:17,940
could start from the observation that the right of a state to defend itself

127
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:23,160
triggered by an aggressive war is as uncontroversial a ground of war as we can get,

128
00:13:23,730 --> 00:13:29,820
and that the right to deter once aggression has taken place follows closely on its heels.

129
00:13:30,420 --> 00:13:36,810
Why is that? And his argument is that I'm quoting now Given that few wars are better than more,

130
00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:43,080
a system in which aggression receives an additional sanction will be to the advantage of all states.

131
00:13:43,680 --> 00:13:52,170
And I think this formulation is important because it shows that the right is grounded in the well-being of all states.

132
00:13:52,590 --> 00:13:56,129
Or, if you prefer, we could see in an impersonal demand of justice,

133
00:13:56,130 --> 00:14:00,900
the demand of justice to reduce the number of aggressive acts, since these are morally impermissible.

134
00:14:02,030 --> 00:14:05,639
Now, my question is, well, then why should the state have won the war?

135
00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:14,880
The war in particular, enjoy this, right? So if state a unjustly attacked state, be be certainly has the right to go to war in order to defend itself.

136
00:14:15,660 --> 00:14:22,650
But once these goal, namely self-defence, has been achieved, there is the separate problem of achieving the further goal, namely deterrence.

137
00:14:26,190 --> 00:14:29,159
I can see why this goal requires interfering with the sovereignty of the losing

138
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:32,940
state in a way requires punishing leaders and reshaping the Constitution as some.

139
00:14:33,210 --> 00:14:40,260
But what is the justification for bit in particular, having this right, given that the right is grounded in the interests of all state?

140
00:14:40,590 --> 00:14:49,170
Or, as I said, in an impersonal demand of justice, consider the right, the right to put leaders on trial with the aim of deterring future aggressions.

141
00:14:49,380 --> 00:14:54,540
Why not give this right to an uninvolved state if the animal state will be able to do a better job?

142
00:14:54,840 --> 00:15:00,300
Why should an Israeli if the tribunals of C or D would be more efficient in prosecuting and punishing the leaders?

143
00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:05,459
And indeed, we might think that there are very good reasons why animal states would do a better

144
00:15:05,460 --> 00:15:09,450
job than a even if their respective tribunals are normally equally reliable.

145
00:15:10,200 --> 00:15:13,260
First thing, the tribunal tribunals of an animal a state might be more impartial.

146
00:15:13,740 --> 00:15:20,670
Second thing, their decisions by me might be more easily accepted by the members of the defeated country who would even be afraid of victors justice.

147
00:15:22,020 --> 00:15:27,090
And the same is true in the case of the other two in the other two substantive conditions that you consider.

148
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:32,190
Indeed, I think my suggestion is even stronger in the case of the right to install a new government or a new

149
00:15:32,190 --> 00:15:37,410
mode of political life so that the goal is to author the political constitution of the losing state.

150
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:41,190
It seems to me that it will make sense to give the right to do so to the state

151
00:15:41,190 --> 00:15:44,730
best able to design the new constitution rather than to the victorious state.

152
00:15:45,270 --> 00:15:46,319
We should look, for example,

153
00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:52,590
for a state with a more developed legal culture which would do a better job in designing the political institutions of the regular state.

154
00:15:54,220 --> 00:16:02,770
That's good. He himself acknowledges that then the right tool in the right to install a you

155
00:16:02,770 --> 00:16:07,300
a new government is grounded in a what he calls a can flies off principle.

156
00:16:08,290 --> 00:16:11,440
These are principles defended by philosophers like John Finney's or Leslie Green.

157
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:14,950
But in his own words, he puts on one or two words.

158
00:16:15,190 --> 00:16:21,310
These principles. These principles normally state that any party with the capacity to affect the rescue ought to do so.

159
00:16:21,910 --> 00:16:24,489
But then why select the Victory State, in particular at the Fed?

160
00:16:24,490 --> 00:16:28,660
The rescue seems to me that considerations of efficacy are normally what grant his duties,

161
00:16:28,660 --> 00:16:31,720
and the following writes this, for example, as the degree view.

162
00:16:33,490 --> 00:16:39,459
Now the possible reply that came to my mind when I was trying to think about this problem is that what I thought?

163
00:16:39,460 --> 00:16:44,170
Whatever particular raises the right of the state attack to defend itself,

164
00:16:44,290 --> 00:16:49,330
we also particularised the right to deter the attack in state after the end of the war.

165
00:16:50,410 --> 00:16:54,310
But then I thought, Wait a second, what is it that Particularised is the right of the state to defend itself?

166
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:59,739
And I'm not sure I'm I should confess, I'm not an expert on this debate.

167
00:16:59,740 --> 00:17:05,649
So maybe there's an obvious reason that I'm just not aware. But seems to me that it might be argued that there are no more reasons for this.

168
00:17:05,650 --> 00:17:10,900
It might be argued that attack states have a right to defend themselves, but this right is not exclusive.

169
00:17:11,230 --> 00:17:16,240
In other words, it's just that normally other states are not keen in getting towards the defence states that

170
00:17:16,240 --> 00:17:20,440
are able to defend themselves unless their interests are also threatened by the aggression.

171
00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:20,830
Somehow,

172
00:17:21,610 --> 00:17:29,200
by say that Gareth protect or protectors created their own states on earth that will be willing to defend other states that are just attacked,

173
00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:35,019
you know, and they would do these in the best possible way by respecting the requirements of using battle or minimising the killing us,

174
00:17:35,020 --> 00:17:40,629
so that I'm not sure that any of the attack states would have the right to defend itself.

175
00:17:40,630 --> 00:17:46,120
The protectors they have the right. I think we can see this clearly in the case of individual self-defence,

176
00:17:46,660 --> 00:17:50,830
say that I'm attacked and the only way I can defend myself is by killing the aggressor.

177
00:17:51,310 --> 00:17:55,600
But someone else next to me could defend me equally effectively without killing the aggressor.

178
00:17:56,710 --> 00:18:00,190
Now, I'm not sure that this person would have a duty to defend me. Maybe it would just.

179
00:18:00,550 --> 00:18:05,800
I don't know. But my suspicion is that if he was willing to defend me, then he would.

180
00:18:06,310 --> 00:18:09,520
Then he would have the right to do so. And I wouldn't have the right to defend myself.

181
00:18:09,970 --> 00:18:16,630
Of course, I could be excused for doing so. I guess my question is, is this does this make sense?

182
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:23,440
And if it does make sense, I suspect that this view is equally true in the case of collective violence and in the case of individual bargaining.

183
00:18:23,450 --> 00:18:28,299
So I think that could say much about the difference between the two is convincing and important.

184
00:18:28,300 --> 00:18:31,630
But I think the same conclusion would hold in both in both cases here.

185
00:18:32,890 --> 00:18:39,700
Now, if if this view is correct, I suspect it wouldn't make much of much difference in the case of the right of states to defend themselves,

186
00:18:39,700 --> 00:18:44,139
but most likely would make a difference in because of the duty to go over and over the

187
00:18:44,140 --> 00:18:48,160
losing state in order to deter or to restore the rule of law still in your government.

188
00:18:49,570 --> 00:18:54,160
Why is that? Well, I think that it wouldn't make a big difference in the case of the right of states to defend themselves,

189
00:18:54,160 --> 00:18:57,729
because, as I said, states are not in any way in going toward that effect.

190
00:18:57,730 --> 00:19:03,820
Other states that are able to defend themselves. And when they do, we have all reason to suspect that they have an agenda.

191
00:19:04,450 --> 00:19:10,960
So even if I'm right, the states would be that other states would be better able to defend that state.

192
00:19:11,260 --> 00:19:19,690
The attack state would probably have the right to defend itself for the simple reason that no other state will exercise this right.

193
00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:25,000
But when it comes to the right to govern the losing state in order to reshape its institutions or face the leaders,

194
00:19:25,330 --> 00:19:32,280
animal states might be less reluctant to intervene, although again, we should be wary of possible hidden agendas here in this case,

195
00:19:32,290 --> 00:19:36,189
I think the right the right to govern doesn't fall on the Victoria State,

196
00:19:36,190 --> 00:19:44,290
but on the state that best able to do the job and think again about the parallel with the individual case if they harm the aggressor,

197
00:19:44,590 --> 00:19:49,870
I certainly have a right to provide him with first state, the right to interfere with his physical integrity,

198
00:19:49,870 --> 00:19:53,350
to provide first aid, which is grounded in a national duty to rescue.

199
00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:58,690
But if there's a doctor around that, I have the duty to let the doctor deal with the aggressor.

200
00:19:59,410 --> 00:20:06,309
Now, if I'm right about all this, it seems that none of the substantive foundations conceded by cuts can ground the right

201
00:20:06,310 --> 00:20:09,790
of the victorious state to do any of the things that Victoria states normally do.

202
00:20:10,540 --> 00:20:13,029
The right thing is not a government to change the constitution,

203
00:20:13,030 --> 00:20:18,550
to punish the leaders does not belong to the victorious state, but to whichever state is best placed to do his job.

204
00:20:19,390 --> 00:20:25,990
So the Victoria State would have this right only if states are better placed to do the job, to do them to their duty,

205
00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:34,540
say that they don't want to be involved or even as a matter of fact, the Victoria State is the one best suited to that to realise these goals.

206
00:20:34,540 --> 00:20:37,750
But notice that in a sort this would be a merely contingent fact.

207
00:20:37,780 --> 00:20:41,679
Even so, there would be no relationship between its right to govern.

208
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:48,819
And the fact that he won the war now is that this objection doesn't target the importance of using ballot.

209
00:20:48,820 --> 00:20:53,320
Consider in consideration in establishing that the war is just what is.

210
00:20:53,410 --> 00:20:57,100
Target targeted is rather the contrast that underlies the treatment of how we should

211
00:20:57,100 --> 00:21:01,990
think about useful spelling could suggest that we should choose between two views.

212
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:06,220
On the one hand, the view that victory grants specific rights for the victors,

213
00:21:06,670 --> 00:21:10,510
and on the other hand, the view that there is no link between just peace and just war.

214
00:21:11,050 --> 00:21:15,430
And I'm quoting now that there's no field of right to be constructed on the battleground.

215
00:21:16,660 --> 00:21:20,380
And I guess what I'm trying to say here is that conceptually, there seem to be room for a third view,

216
00:21:20,830 --> 00:21:27,069
one that acknowledges that winning grants certain duties, which in turn grant certain rights to govern the losing country.

217
00:21:27,070 --> 00:21:32,320
But this right is not necessarily a right of the victims. And if I can.

218
00:21:32,320 --> 00:21:37,149
Just one or 2 minutes. Yeah, just one final point.

219
00:21:37,150 --> 00:21:40,930
I'd like to hear a bit more about the relationship between just peace and just war.

220
00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:42,580
This is just a clarification.

221
00:21:43,360 --> 00:21:51,579
So it could suggest that a peace that doesn't include enough reshaping of political institutions or of the U.S. is facing an aggressive aggressors.

222
00:21:51,580 --> 00:21:55,750
Political institutions to deter future aggression will not justify its course.

223
00:21:56,770 --> 00:22:03,400
I'm going to show this somewhat gives me and say that country isn't just attacked by B and a goes to war to defend itself.

224
00:22:03,730 --> 00:22:11,590
Now it is capable of winning the war. Meeting the conditions of using battle and using absolute conditions are actually what it is.

225
00:22:12,100 --> 00:22:17,620
But Abe wouldn't be able to effectively reshape the political institutions of b, c,

226
00:22:17,620 --> 00:22:21,310
you know, perhaps it's a well-known fact that B is divided by a longstanding internal fight.

227
00:22:22,480 --> 00:22:26,800
Now, is it permissible for A to go to war? How should we consider these as war?

228
00:22:26,830 --> 00:22:30,070
Is it justified? Is it is it just. I'd like to hear a bit more about this.

229
00:22:30,460 --> 00:22:42,310
Mm hmm. Thank you. Wonderful. On the on the main part of your argument that the duty to rescue could be carried by anyone or whoever is best placed.

230
00:22:43,450 --> 00:22:50,920
I mean, that seems absolutely right in principle that this wouldn't be this or the duty to rescue is in particular is to Victoria State.

231
00:22:51,610 --> 00:22:56,409
It does imagine an international community with a capacity to do this kind of work.

232
00:22:56,410 --> 00:23:03,220
And I guess sort of the suppressed premise in this is that no such community is on the horizon.

233
00:23:03,230 --> 00:23:09,160
And there are I mean, more multilateralism and more internationalism is clearly better.

234
00:23:09,160 --> 00:23:13,330
And I think in the case of the punishment of the general function, I think we you know,

235
00:23:13,330 --> 00:23:17,350
we're starting to see starting to see something like that, although,

236
00:23:18,820 --> 00:23:27,430
you know, clearly there are the international tribunals are identified with sort of winning winning parties and I think in the minds of the countries.

237
00:23:28,630 --> 00:23:35,470
But so it really just an assumption that it's the the victorious nation that's in the position best position to do this.

238
00:23:35,470 --> 00:23:38,920
Or is that loyalist volunteer similar to the self-defence argument?

239
00:23:39,700 --> 00:23:46,690
But no. So I agree in principle and that's I mean, something to incorporate into into the paper.

240
00:23:47,500 --> 00:23:51,520
On the second point about what I think, I just I just have a can of justice.

241
00:23:51,940 --> 00:23:58,000
But I thought that your point was to establish some kind of link between the justification to do whatever

242
00:23:58,810 --> 00:24:03,400
it is required to do after the end of the war and the fact that that specific country won the war.

243
00:24:03,850 --> 00:24:07,270
But there's no connection in that case. The connection is right.

244
00:24:07,270 --> 00:24:10,690
It becomes purely the contingency contingent. Yes, it becomes purely contingent.

245
00:24:11,140 --> 00:24:15,160
Yeah. So it's not the right of the victors, the right of whoever can do it.

246
00:24:15,400 --> 00:24:19,480
Right. The victor happens to be the closest to the scene. No, that that's exactly right.

247
00:24:19,750 --> 00:24:25,570
And yeah, the point of that duty argument is to, in effect, try to break the notion of a kind of a right to rule.

248
00:24:26,410 --> 00:24:31,480
And so I take that as actually a very friendly amendment and very helpful.

249
00:24:32,230 --> 00:24:38,830
The on the question of I think I have a line where I say it seems to me that into a war,

250
00:24:38,830 --> 00:24:42,850
one with insufficient sort of future going deterrence is unjustified.

251
00:24:42,850 --> 00:24:49,120
And that simply it was simply a thought that the the the war won't have been worth fighting.

252
00:24:49,120 --> 00:24:57,050
The costs of the war, the human costs to both nations would have been worth incurring if another war is coming down the pike so that the that

253
00:24:57,190 --> 00:25:03,910
the the extraordinary cost of war need to be balanced out by the long run benefit of deterring future aggression.

254
00:25:04,390 --> 00:25:15,040
And that it was simply that thought that that inadequate deterrence post-war will mean that the game wasn't worth the candle,

255
00:25:15,040 --> 00:25:18,520
that that the costs of war weren't, in fact, worth occurring.

256
00:25:19,220 --> 00:25:24,820
So, you know, I don't know if you have a thought about that,

257
00:25:25,210 --> 00:25:35,920
because it seems to me that what to make the war unjustified would be not the fact that not enough words are prevented in the future.

258
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:42,190
But if anything, it would be that, you know, some some serious bad consequences will happen in the future.

259
00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:49,120
So it's not the fact that we wouldn't be able to prevent other killings that might make the war unjustified.

260
00:25:49,120 --> 00:25:52,780
But if anything, it would be the fact that other killings would follow somehow.

261
00:25:55,020 --> 00:26:05,250
So the fact it seems to me that award can be justified if, you know, say we can protect certain sort of goods or listed as liable and so on.

262
00:26:05,760 --> 00:26:16,559
And if these considerations are in place, the fact that that's still not enough to prevent future wars doesn't seem to me particularly well to,

263
00:26:16,560 --> 00:26:20,540
you know, depends on how one specifies the range of future forces for any future war.

264
00:26:20,550 --> 00:26:23,760
It's future wars against this territory that I have in mind.

265
00:26:24,090 --> 00:26:27,270
Yeah. Should be open up for discussion. Sure.

266
00:26:29,400 --> 00:26:33,210
Yeah. This is kind of a is a kind of question.

267
00:26:33,500 --> 00:26:38,370
It's almost more like it's it's a matter of resulting in very intelligent discussion.

268
00:26:38,680 --> 00:26:48,060
And you say that when it's talking about the right to kind of rebuild, if you like it, you say it's the best placed to do the job.

269
00:26:49,020 --> 00:26:51,120
I think that's probably a bit too demanding.

270
00:26:51,720 --> 00:27:01,850
I think it wants to say that it's the agent that's got the right to is anyone that meets a certain threshold of particular conditions.

271
00:27:01,870 --> 00:27:10,730
So you might think that any agent that is going to establish these political institutions to punishment effectively, whatever.

272
00:27:10,750 --> 00:27:19,010
So I think you can conceive it as a threshold. And then certain agents, a whole host of agents then may have the right to be able to act then.

273
00:27:19,020 --> 00:27:25,770
Then when it comes to determining which item is actually got the particular duty, then you might say, well, you should be the one that's best placed.

274
00:27:26,160 --> 00:27:33,180
So you might have a situation, for instance, where A and B can both establish both a really good job rebuilding.

275
00:27:34,380 --> 00:27:40,620
But I can do it a tiny bit better than they now would be. But we think, well, both of them should have the right to be able to do it.

276
00:27:40,860 --> 00:27:46,410
But when you actually saying, well, which one's got the duty, we think, well, okay, maybe because he's going to do a better job.

277
00:27:46,800 --> 00:27:48,930
So it's just a slightly it's just going to slight. Right.

278
00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:54,720
It's a different thing when he's talking about the right, the duty, which was best placed on the threshold.

279
00:27:56,760 --> 00:28:08,040
I kind of another quick point that has. I wonder what your thoughts, both your thoughts were about which particular particular was here in question.

280
00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:11,429
So the defensive wars differ from humanitarian law.

281
00:28:11,430 --> 00:28:14,729
So when you engage in the war humanitarian intervention,

282
00:28:14,730 --> 00:28:18,420
it's sometimes suggested that those that engaged in wars of humanitarian

283
00:28:18,420 --> 00:28:23,430
intervention have got they take on the burdens of kind of rebuilding afterwards.

284
00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:29,549
This is a kind of common claim that's made. Responsibility to protect the homeland seems to imply this as well.

285
00:28:29,550 --> 00:28:38,010
But this might seem to kind of lead some thought that, well, there is some sort of difference between humanitarian wars and defensive wars.

286
00:28:38,010 --> 00:28:45,420
But on the other hand, you might think, well, so this is asking a lot of humanitarian things as well, because, well,

287
00:28:45,630 --> 00:28:49,920
not only do they have to actually engage in humanitarian intervention, they don't have to pick up the whole bill of rebuilding.

288
00:28:49,930 --> 00:28:54,030
So I'm not quite sure what I think about it, but I just wondered what your thoughts.

289
00:28:55,110 --> 00:29:00,240
Yeah, actually, on the first on the first or must have had to do an answer a few years ago.

290
00:29:00,250 --> 00:29:05,850
First on on the first point I was going to say there might be you might think that there is a special a special privilege

291
00:29:05,850 --> 00:29:11,370
that an international organisation would have if it such an international organisation with that capacity existed,

292
00:29:12,390 --> 00:29:17,879
that it would have a privilege over more partisan states to engage in the

293
00:29:17,880 --> 00:29:25,350
rebuilding precisely because it could be seen to be less interested and in the,

294
00:29:25,470 --> 00:29:27,360
you know, the particularities of the outcome.

295
00:29:28,230 --> 00:29:35,160
You know, as I said, I don't pay attention to that because it didn't seem to me that any such institution was un was really a viable player here.

296
00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:42,150
But I think there might be a reason to think that it won't be simply a function of capacity, but of a distinctive kind of standing.

297
00:29:42,330 --> 00:29:49,950
And I agree with you, the Mulvihill was the fact that multilateralism clearly enter into that, you know, the humanitarian.

298
00:29:49,950 --> 00:29:56,220
It's true that right the once the the sort of the bill for humanitarian intervention increases, you make it much less likely it's going to happen.

299
00:29:56,370 --> 00:29:59,399
It can seem unfair to the to the rescuer.

300
00:29:59,400 --> 00:30:06,840
I mean, there are all sorts of situations. I think this is a sort of it's one of the general kind of paradoxes of Good Samaritan ism that,

301
00:30:06,940 --> 00:30:11,370
you know, wading into a problem can land you with a whole host of responsibilities.

302
00:30:12,080 --> 00:30:23,220
It but that seems to be a kind of a feature of the case that once one has interrupted sovereignty,

303
00:30:24,030 --> 00:30:28,830
accepted the duty to stop and stop a genocide from taking place.

304
00:30:29,550 --> 00:30:32,820
You know, you have the responsibilty to make sure that it won't take place,

305
00:30:32,820 --> 00:30:36,000
that it's not just that it stop at the moment for that it won't take place as soon as you leave.

306
00:30:36,390 --> 00:30:41,640
And that unfortunately requires a great deal of rebuilding now humanitarian intervention

307
00:30:41,640 --> 00:30:47,580
to make a legitimate call on call on other nations for support in this effort and that.

308
00:30:48,600 --> 00:30:53,069
So there's no reason to think that the intervening state has stuck with the bill,

309
00:30:53,070 --> 00:30:56,100
but it does have a distinctive responsibility by being in the midst of it.

310
00:30:57,780 --> 00:30:58,589
As to the first point,

311
00:30:58,590 --> 00:31:09,120
I'm not sure I would simply say that to say that state aid has to be could do a pretty good job and but even do a slightly better job,

312
00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:11,849
only slightly better if you are talking about realising justice.

313
00:31:11,850 --> 00:31:19,020
So that would be less justice that Israel eyes on the countries be does the job done if it does the job now say

314
00:31:19,020 --> 00:31:26,550
that it is it is willing to do the job and be do you think that's permissible for be to to do the job instead?

315
00:31:27,390 --> 00:31:32,100
It's not just about the duty I think it's also about it also affects permissibility, right?

316
00:31:32,700 --> 00:31:38,240
Yeah. I mean, I think it probably is if you if you've got, if you've got enough chances realised.

317
00:31:38,250 --> 00:31:41,720
Yeah. Yeah. Do you have a finger. Yeah. Yeah.

318
00:31:41,730 --> 00:31:45,209
It is about this relationship between right and duty and I didn't care what you

319
00:31:45,210 --> 00:31:50,130
said about humanitarian might be applicable more widely in the sense that I think.

320
00:31:50,130 --> 00:31:58,440
But I also tend to think that there is a threshold above which because I don't think we have just one state which is like the perfect state,

321
00:31:58,440 --> 00:32:02,639
the one liberal idea, which is just there is just one way to to create.

322
00:32:02,640 --> 00:32:08,910
I think there has to be some kind of threshold. So maybe anyone above a certain threshold can do a good job and therefore would have it right.

323
00:32:08,910 --> 00:32:13,739
But I think actually that the duty is not then the one that is based in this place,

324
00:32:13,740 --> 00:32:17,490
but rather on the one that having to begin with, even if it was for self-defence.

325
00:32:17,790 --> 00:32:26,729
And that's a connection that I think exists, because even if you intervene because your state state was unjustly attacked and so it intervenes,

326
00:32:26,730 --> 00:32:30,900
but once it intervenes, now it has a special relationship with the people in the state.

327
00:32:31,350 --> 00:32:38,729
And so I'm like any other state with my CV or even all of them can put in place a just institution more

328
00:32:38,730 --> 00:32:44,760
or less above a certain threshold state a has a special relationship and therefore she has a stake,

329
00:32:44,790 --> 00:32:50,639
has not only a right but also a duty to do it, whereas others I'm not sure that you know.

330
00:32:50,640 --> 00:32:54,110
So let's say now two countries on the other side of the world.

331
00:32:54,120 --> 00:32:57,959
Fine. So England now has the responsibility to come in.

332
00:32:57,960 --> 00:33:04,520
And even if, let's say, England is best. I used to put the best just system.

333
00:33:05,150 --> 00:33:10,190
It just seems to me like we are dragging people from the states in this case, from all over the world.

334
00:33:10,190 --> 00:33:19,819
Suddenly they all have duties to intervene in place, just institutions, which seems to me taking it a bit too far in terms of, you know,

335
00:33:19,820 --> 00:33:25,940
there is a basic humanitarian if there is genocide or something like that, you might say all countries have some kind of responsibility.

336
00:33:26,300 --> 00:33:32,630
But beyond that, I'm not really sure that we can really create duties which create demand, because I think we can create.

337
00:33:32,670 --> 00:33:38,510
Right. If they choose to intervene, that's fine. And the state that in fact intervene should have a duty,

338
00:33:39,320 --> 00:33:45,650
whereas others would only have a right based on based in basically in its causal responsibility for having destroyed the institutions.

339
00:33:46,190 --> 00:33:48,440
Yeah, I think we should also know.

340
00:33:48,440 --> 00:33:55,879
So if you want to go public about my case of individual self-defence, you know, when I defend in defending myself, I, I harm the aggressor.

341
00:33:55,880 --> 00:33:59,360
But there's a doctor who could and I could do something to help the aggressor.

342
00:33:59,390 --> 00:34:04,879
Well, if a doctor does not have. So the doctor is not responsible? I don't think you know, I don't think necessarily has a duty.

343
00:34:04,880 --> 00:34:11,240
I think doctors have a profession possibly. But someone else is just not by yet, you know.

344
00:34:11,420 --> 00:34:19,729
Yeah. I don't think he has a I don't think he has a duty as such to come and help maybe if he's a good person.

345
00:34:19,730 --> 00:34:26,530
But I'm not sure that I'm willing to impose any duties that include costs and things like that and say he's responsible.

346
00:34:26,540 --> 00:34:31,230
You have a special responsibility because you've caused the damage, Victor.

347
00:34:31,670 --> 00:34:35,070
The next one.

348
00:34:39,650 --> 00:34:52,300
So I want to look at the claim that says that the thought that says that we can identify who was on the just side by looking at who won it,

349
00:34:52,370 --> 00:34:55,549
which seems like it's absurd. Yeah, it gives us good reason to defend it.

350
00:34:55,550 --> 00:35:02,690
Right, because you get extra points for defending of of food.

351
00:35:03,030 --> 00:35:11,390
So this looks like an argument for that. But do we know that the side that lost did something that was objectively unjust?

352
00:35:11,900 --> 00:35:15,890
Right. Because they launched a war where they didn't achieve their aims.

353
00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:20,180
And we know that success is part of the conditions of the fighting or just war.

354
00:35:21,620 --> 00:35:27,199
So they just sent all of their people off to get slaughtered and they've done it for no reason.

355
00:35:27,200 --> 00:35:30,470
They haven't fulfilled any of their aims because they've lost. Right.

356
00:35:30,950 --> 00:35:38,780
And then we think, well, the side that one has fought against a country that sent all these people off to get slaughtered for no good reason.

357
00:35:39,050 --> 00:35:42,320
And that gives us some reason to think that that may have been justified.

358
00:35:42,830 --> 00:35:47,420
But it's not a very strong reason for some reason to make us think that they're on the just side.

359
00:35:47,420 --> 00:35:52,610
We don't know anything else. Then we have unbalanced reasons to think they were on the just sorry.

360
00:35:52,790 --> 00:35:59,180
The is the force of moral thought that the success retrospectively validates the the war or it adds to the weight of that.

361
00:35:59,210 --> 00:36:03,290
We know that they fought against an objectively unjust country.

362
00:36:03,410 --> 00:36:07,819
Let's send all these people to slaughter for no reason. Yeah. They're not looking after the citizens very well.

363
00:36:07,820 --> 00:36:11,750
They. They get killed and everything regularise so that prison.

364
00:36:11,750 --> 00:36:15,799
But now we've got some reason to think the other side is and was also because they

365
00:36:15,800 --> 00:36:22,640
fought together was this country that was willing to do that and Geoff had a finger.

366
00:36:23,210 --> 00:36:29,970
Well they they they could conceivably have achieved that.

367
00:36:30,090 --> 00:36:35,690
The loser could conceivably have achieved most of what it set out to achieve,

368
00:36:35,690 --> 00:36:45,200
but nevertheless lost the military contest to the possibility, which for some reason, let's say this is a lot of lots of other reasons.

369
00:36:45,200 --> 00:36:49,219
I think they lost a lot of lives. But isn't it prospect of success?

370
00:36:49,220 --> 00:36:53,629
Not success, but it's a just war. It could have been subject to be justified, but objectively unjustified.

371
00:36:53,630 --> 00:36:56,270
But if we just take it as if someone's objectively unjustified,

372
00:36:56,510 --> 00:37:00,520
gives us some reason to think they were subjectively unjustified, to say that has been.

373
00:37:00,520 --> 00:37:04,759
No, I mean, I think you're right about the objective of justification to decide that loss.

374
00:37:04,760 --> 00:37:09,079
But the mistake is to assume that that tells us anything about the justification of the other side.

375
00:37:09,080 --> 00:37:24,770
This is exactly your point from earlier in the day that the end of the spectrum tells us nothing about the justification of the other side.

376
00:37:24,770 --> 00:37:29,900
I must say that both of them were responsible for the war.

377
00:37:29,990 --> 00:37:31,670
And, you know, just this fact about them,

378
00:37:31,880 --> 00:37:39,050
either they fought against someone who sent all of their people to mass slaughter for no reason or against someone who didn't do that.

379
00:37:40,180 --> 00:37:49,590
And not just because of some reason to believe there's one last finger in response to your ludicrous point here.

380
00:37:50,390 --> 00:37:57,980
And it's just an elaboration.

381
00:37:59,400 --> 00:38:09,940
And a week ago. The boy joins the international community's attention to the problem has been solved.

382
00:38:10,660 --> 00:38:15,820
This is the mess. The road. Yeah. So that would be a case where it's not.

383
00:38:17,000 --> 00:38:21,370
Just some reason to believe those inside futuristic.

384
00:38:25,840 --> 00:38:30,130
I think maybe we should move out. Okay. Sure.

385
00:38:30,610 --> 00:38:32,780
Thanks a lot, Chris, for a really engaging thinker.

386
00:38:33,670 --> 00:38:42,880
So my question is, I think it's essentially an objection that the ultimate goal here is to use force vote in general and I think get a 2300.

387
00:38:44,140 --> 00:38:47,860
And it's it's about where we exactly use both of those begins.

388
00:38:48,880 --> 00:38:56,610
So I think the objection hinges on this question of community relations, where we end up, what often happens with two options.

389
00:38:56,610 --> 00:39:03,440
So we have a peace settlement that signifies the end of conflict as.

390
00:39:05,420 --> 00:39:10,640
But it doesn't specify a victory.

391
00:39:11,240 --> 00:39:17,899
The other alternative is that the demands are there pragmatically its word for territorial

392
00:39:17,900 --> 00:39:22,310
administration or political reconstruction that happen before the end of the war.

393
00:39:22,520 --> 00:39:30,379
Right. And so I wonder if this sort of affects this argument and that if you have

394
00:39:30,380 --> 00:39:34,670
this pragmatic need for free territory in the territorial administration and.

395
00:39:36,140 --> 00:39:45,380
Do you? Does that then kind of defeat the the particular argument that you're making, that that's what is.

396
00:39:47,950 --> 00:39:52,850
It's great. So if there aren't clear actors yet. Is it is it possible?

397
00:39:53,330 --> 00:39:59,110
I mean, is there a right. Can you convert something that doesn't exist on.

398
00:39:59,450 --> 00:40:06,310
Right. Okay. So before the picture has been quite well. So, I mean, yeah, this is I mean, I take it this is a version of Maximus.

399
00:40:06,710 --> 00:40:14,300
I mean, it's another version of the child. I don't I don't feel like I have anything at stake in the particular station argument.

400
00:40:14,300 --> 00:40:22,190
I'm trying to come up with some way of thinking about what has been a practice of the Victory State, asserting it's asserting its right,

401
00:40:22,400 --> 00:40:29,650
and whether or not and if it might be that other states are enjoying that right or distributed maybe true.

402
00:40:29,660 --> 00:40:33,889
I mean I'm I'm intrigued by the causal responsibility are going to have tended to be somewhat

403
00:40:33,890 --> 00:40:40,070
sceptical of causal responsibilities grounding much of anything in in responsibility generally.

404
00:40:40,070 --> 00:40:45,230
So I'm not inclined to jump at that. But that's clearly the easiest way to particularised the argument.

405
00:40:46,220 --> 00:40:52,400
But on the maximum version of this, clearly victory has no significance at all.

406
00:40:52,400 --> 00:40:56,299
It simply is whoever is has the resources to bear to to solve the humanitarian problem.

407
00:40:56,300 --> 00:41:01,440
And that seems right now. Chris, thank you for that.

408
00:41:01,460 --> 00:41:08,870
This is a very interesting paper. On page 23 of the last paragraph before.

409
00:41:10,840 --> 00:41:17,430
You say this, for instance, whatever the justice of the Iraq war, too.

410
00:41:18,190 --> 00:41:22,070
Once the U.S. had destroyed its institutions of.

411
00:41:23,350 --> 00:41:37,910
It had a duty to rebuild. I realise you may have been referring to a moral duty as opposed to a good lawyer that I am.

412
00:41:38,300 --> 00:41:45,970
But that is. Referring to a legal pad and wondering whether you feel that, for example,

413
00:41:47,410 --> 00:41:56,920
there needs to be some kind of just post Geneva Convention or additional protocol to the Geneva Convention,

414
00:41:57,040 --> 00:42:01,540
another other kind of codification to the law of conflict.

415
00:42:02,080 --> 00:42:07,260
And if so, what duties? What legal duty? Yeah.

416
00:42:07,350 --> 00:42:14,550
So no, I was referring to moral duty. Right. The and I guess there I was polled very strongly by the causal the causal tuition.

417
00:42:14,790 --> 00:42:27,850
Yeah. The. I mean, you know, the you know, my sort of reaction is that any international document will come out,

418
00:42:27,860 --> 00:42:32,689
will fantasise an international process that will do this and such a process won't work.

419
00:42:32,690 --> 00:42:38,330
And so this is not the most useful exercise, but that may be too cynical.

420
00:42:38,960 --> 00:42:48,050
The you know, I mean, the legal duty would be to ensure that ensure that an occupied territory has functioning

421
00:42:48,290 --> 00:42:53,770
representative institutions that can provide for the basic the basic rights of its citizens.

422
00:42:53,870 --> 00:43:01,880
And if so, it's a, you know, more robust set of occupation or occupation guidelines.

423
00:43:02,160 --> 00:43:05,390
This is among the forms of reconstruction that need to take place.

424
00:43:05,900 --> 00:43:08,000
You know, reconstructing water supply,

425
00:43:08,000 --> 00:43:16,130
infrastructure in settlement is reconstructing governmental infrastructure in a way that leads to a reasonably representative government.

426
00:43:19,250 --> 00:43:22,850
I mean, do you do you have a response to that or talk about that?

427
00:43:23,420 --> 00:43:29,150
Well, that raises other issues. I mean, for example, if an occupying power has that kind of a duty.

428
00:43:29,390 --> 00:43:33,590
I'm also wondering whether actually that could lead to a duty to remain there

429
00:43:34,220 --> 00:43:38,540
indefinitely periods of time until certain institutions and structures are built up.

430
00:43:38,690 --> 00:43:45,919
I mean, it's it's yeah, it's an interesting it's a great idea. I just think it's not free of problems, you know, but to very brief fingers.

431
00:43:45,920 --> 00:43:49,680
Michael and Patrick. Right. Would you distinguish between occupation and just defeats?

432
00:43:49,730 --> 00:43:51,049
In other words, there are laws of religion,

433
00:43:51,050 --> 00:43:57,890
occupation and rights and allowances and imposts and duties about keeping the infrastructure rising and so forth,

434
00:43:58,190 --> 00:44:01,370
as opposed to just defeating a country without really occupying.

435
00:44:01,370 --> 00:44:06,700
That is quite right. Maybe not even pulling in, maybe doing it by remote bombardment.

436
00:44:06,890 --> 00:44:11,969
Well, aerial bombardment, yeah. Some of the support. Would it be the same kind of obligation?

437
00:44:11,970 --> 00:44:20,209
And if there's an obligation, yes. I mean. Right. The obligation to rebuild would be independent of I wouldn't rest on an duties of occupation.

438
00:44:20,210 --> 00:44:25,400
It would be a function of having destroyed a country's infrastructure or alternatively,

439
00:44:25,400 --> 00:44:31,180
that infrastructure having been destroyed that it might miss on the internationals 300.

440
00:44:32,150 --> 00:44:39,100
And when you look at the transplant literature and how difficult it is to transplant effective institutions,

441
00:44:39,110 --> 00:44:47,800
I mean, the tradition in central Western Europe of any confusion had to be pretty cautious, didn't have any mind.

442
00:44:47,840 --> 00:44:56,020
I think your characterisation of the biology, you have to be pretty sensitive to the sociological realities that particularly is more right.

443
00:44:56,910 --> 00:45:02,510
Maybe, you know, optimal physical conditions. Yes. I mean, which I think you could have noted.

444
00:45:02,630 --> 00:45:05,930
Yeah. In your paper that now seem to be better. Come back to you from your comments.

445
00:45:07,280 --> 00:45:10,360
Yeah. No, I certainly can't remember where. But yeah.

446
00:45:10,370 --> 00:45:14,150
The right the, the possibility of success is so low that that's one.

447
00:45:14,450 --> 00:45:18,690
Right. It's a reason it's reason to be sceptical that any Bravo student could exist.

448
00:45:18,710 --> 00:45:21,350
On the other hand, the alternative, the sort of the walk,

449
00:45:21,920 --> 00:45:30,319
the sort of the walk away position that the picture of freedom to walk away or to intervene, it seems to me, to unconstrained as well.

450
00:45:30,320 --> 00:45:34,940
So, I mean, you know, as you said, the paper reflects an impasse in my thought. And I guess what?

451
00:45:35,090 --> 00:45:37,430
I'm still circling around here, Henry.

452
00:45:39,500 --> 00:45:51,829
I'm afraid this is going to be a string of unrelated sentences, but I'm trying to sort of draw you out on what in your opening remark was.

453
00:45:51,830 --> 00:45:59,530
The comment about fact is that you take it seriously because historically back like.

454
00:46:03,140 --> 00:46:07,280
One thing that worries a lot of people about the UN Charter.

455
00:46:08,690 --> 00:46:15,020
Principle four The resort to war is that because it says wars have to be.

456
00:46:16,750 --> 00:46:25,480
In self-defence. It doesn't allow wars which undo injustice make the world more just as otherwise.

457
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:35,049
And I take it that one argument for the UN position is that although we do want to make the world more just,

458
00:46:35,050 --> 00:46:43,750
that it is war is such a terrible thing that there's a limit to the kind of cleaning up we want to do at the cost of having more and more wars.

459
00:46:43,840 --> 00:46:49,660
And so it's it's on the whole, better to just leave some injustices where they are.

460
00:46:49,670 --> 00:46:53,709
Right? It saves us from all wars. On page 14,

461
00:46:53,710 --> 00:47:00,340
you talk about full doses and say he recognises that different to the more

462
00:47:00,340 --> 00:47:03,700
heavily moralised just war tradition that the insistence on the rectitude of

463
00:47:03,700 --> 00:47:06,790
one role in one part of the conflict would tend to undermine the capacity of

464
00:47:06,790 --> 00:47:10,930
war to settle an issue and then talk about the value of closing the books.

465
00:47:11,770 --> 00:47:15,710
And so I wonder if this is supposed to be getting at the partisan.

466
00:47:16,480 --> 00:47:22,820
Part of the point here is that there is value in closing the books, that this would be within limits.

467
00:47:22,990 --> 00:47:30,430
Right. I mean, since you and I don't think God is actually manipulating it and guaranteeing who wins,

468
00:47:30,430 --> 00:47:36,999
we're not willing to settle for just any victory by just anybody, but kind of within reasonable limits.

469
00:47:37,000 --> 00:47:46,540
And that's sort of how I take the view in pictures. Yeah, what I was thinking is it's a better thing that the fighting stop.

470
00:47:47,170 --> 00:48:02,049
And and so and I'm not sure whether you this or not. And so we might grant the victor a little bit of something right in the manoeuvre

471
00:48:02,050 --> 00:48:10,180
room so that the victor could do some stuff and just kind of clean up a little bit,

472
00:48:10,900 --> 00:48:20,200
even if the wrong side had won, he said, provided that what he did wasn't too awful.

473
00:48:20,890 --> 00:48:24,160
Right. So, I mean, it's like. Right.

474
00:48:24,160 --> 00:48:25,630
No, it's right. It's a right.

475
00:48:25,810 --> 00:48:32,740
That's the sort of the war is the decision procedure idea that it's we so we grant the right to the victor to redraw everything,

476
00:48:32,740 --> 00:48:38,240
particularly territorial boundary issues, to redraw the territorial boundary, perhaps to, you know,

477
00:48:38,300 --> 00:48:50,350
restructure to and perhaps to add in some deterrence components as well in order to make the the conflict cease may not work,

478
00:48:50,350 --> 00:48:53,799
but that that would be the argument for letting the victor have that right,

479
00:48:53,800 --> 00:48:59,410
as it's a way of settling the issue in the absence of an international institution or some other,

480
00:48:59,410 --> 00:49:02,830
you know, third party authority who can settle the issue in a rational.

481
00:49:02,830 --> 00:49:08,530
It's not that there was a pre-existing right answer and God saw to it that the war got us.

482
00:49:08,890 --> 00:49:14,950
Yes, sir. It's just that, you know, there may or may not be a pre-existing right answer, but it's premised on that.

483
00:49:14,950 --> 00:49:16,120
We're not going to know what that is.

484
00:49:16,120 --> 00:49:23,070
We don't have any way to decisively settle the issue by reference to its rightness, only by reference to who's actually victorious.

485
00:49:23,080 --> 00:49:34,000
But that's better than the alternative. I was wondering if we take one.

486
00:49:34,020 --> 00:49:39,999
I really. I love the paper. And all of your writings are appreciated as a as an Army officer.

487
00:49:40,000 --> 00:49:49,020
This. Desire to take seriously all employees can and do try to sort of big institutions have a way with.

488
00:49:50,760 --> 00:50:00,720
Principal philosophical engagement. I wonder if we if we take the notions of asymmetry, serious and sort of the moral primacy of just cause,

489
00:50:01,530 --> 00:50:09,970
if that might lead us to see that there might actually be different accounts for GPP based on different just causes of.

490
00:50:10,900 --> 00:50:18,220
A one size fits all the sort of have the jpg for the underside is Victoria's the sort of.

491
00:50:19,160 --> 00:50:24,110
Minimises that people running around and doing bad things, which is a good thing, obviously.

492
00:50:24,680 --> 00:50:34,370
And then an ARM humanitarian version of Geneva and then a paradigmatic national defence version of GDP.

493
00:50:38,230 --> 00:50:44,889
So you're saying so it certainly makes sense to think that humanitarian intervention claims

494
00:50:44,890 --> 00:50:50,920
will have a different or we might have different code than sort of border disputes.

495
00:50:52,330 --> 00:50:55,750
And there will be all sorts of reasons for thinking that the issue of

496
00:50:56,350 --> 00:51:00,820
neighbourliness or cross-border aggression isn't isn't that significant and so on.

497
00:51:01,780 --> 00:51:11,649
I mean, the sort of my way into the for those passage in the middle was the doubt that we can settle for to all parties contentment,

498
00:51:11,650 --> 00:51:14,800
whether the justified or the unjustified one in the dispute. Right.

499
00:51:15,130 --> 00:51:20,980
So, you know, there might be an immediate border incursion, but that will be premised on some interior claim.

500
00:51:20,980 --> 00:51:24,850
So I'm not sure that we can have a body for when the bad guys win.

501
00:51:25,120 --> 00:51:28,270
And body of principles for when the good guys win. Yeah.

502
00:51:28,530 --> 00:51:34,960
If we can't settle who who's who after the fact. So that that's the that seems to me.

503
00:51:35,410 --> 00:51:37,420
I mean, that seems to be precisely what we want to avoid,

504
00:51:37,420 --> 00:51:43,930
that we need a uniform set of rules that acknowledges that in a perfect world, we're not in a perfect world in which we can.

505
00:51:43,960 --> 00:51:50,020
Yeah. I mean, just in terms of bracketing, sort of the the winner being just and who's the winner of those sorts of things,

506
00:51:50,020 --> 00:51:58,840
we certainly can tell the difference between an armed humanitarian intervention and a war imperative, not a war of national defence.

507
00:51:58,870 --> 00:52:02,850
Yes, I think that, you know, even. Right.

508
00:52:02,870 --> 00:52:09,370
Even if somebody is mistaken, war national defence turns into. Right.

509
00:52:10,930 --> 00:52:17,260
Right. Well we don't. Yeah. Right. There'll be a there then be a special issue if you can kind of bootstrap your way from

510
00:52:17,860 --> 00:52:21,700
an unjust aggression into a humanitarian intervention and then incur greater rights.

511
00:52:22,090 --> 00:52:25,630
So. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's. It's a wonderful suggestion.

512
00:52:25,930 --> 00:52:33,579
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I actually have a question regarding the relation between rights and duties,

513
00:52:33,580 --> 00:52:39,020
and I just assume that it's a wolf in national self-defence and the justice side one.

514
00:52:39,040 --> 00:52:45,700
Let's take the Second World War as an example that the victor won and that he has a right.

515
00:52:45,730 --> 00:52:54,640
What would you say for the following example? That is he France was was was obviously not victorious, but they suffered a lot.

516
00:52:54,910 --> 00:52:58,990
Now, let's imagine the United States, they that's just simplified.

517
00:52:59,080 --> 00:53:04,389
The United States won the war. And so they could determine how Germany should be shaped.

518
00:53:04,390 --> 00:53:11,799
And one idea is obviously, which I think is intuitive, intuitively plausible, that somehow those who suffered from the war, from the unjust war,

519
00:53:11,800 --> 00:53:21,280
have a right to reshape the aggressing country in a way that, as you said, you know, makes it more and more unlikely that this will happen again.

520
00:53:21,280 --> 00:53:26,169
So I would think the French have a right to that of the parents, but they were not victorious.

521
00:53:26,170 --> 00:53:34,840
I would just be curious then, would one say that the right belongs to the victorious or those who suffered the most and just the other way around?

522
00:53:34,840 --> 00:53:38,530
Because then you switched to the duty, to the duty to rebuild.

523
00:53:38,740 --> 00:53:45,100
But then one would think was the duty to listen to the Germans, how their country was to be rebuilt.

524
00:53:45,100 --> 00:53:46,360
I mean, in the end, it worked out.

525
00:53:46,360 --> 00:53:53,530
But and then there were obviously but some more dramatic versions of how to reshape Germany, like the Morgenthau plan.

526
00:53:53,770 --> 00:53:55,930
Would it have been unfair to do it that way?

527
00:53:56,140 --> 00:54:06,130
I mean, would there have been a duty to institutionalise a liberal democratic society, or did the Germans somehow forfeit their right in a way?

528
00:54:06,430 --> 00:54:12,430
So the duty was always from the actor who helps, but I would be interested is the duty,

529
00:54:12,700 --> 00:54:17,950
even with an unjust aggressor, to come and somehow give them the just society?

530
00:54:20,660 --> 00:54:26,510
Sorry. On the last point on the unjust the unjust aggressor. Yeah, there was a duty to provide them.

531
00:54:26,800 --> 00:54:30,010
Let's say that somebody would have made the argument.

532
00:54:30,340 --> 00:54:33,829
Well, it's not about the just about justice in Germany.

533
00:54:33,830 --> 00:54:36,590
It's that's about that we make a more peaceful Germany.

534
00:54:36,670 --> 00:54:42,309
If that kind of I don't know, another, you know, kind of government would secure that in a better way.

535
00:54:42,310 --> 00:54:46,960
Then we have no duty towards the German. It's rather about our defence against them.

536
00:54:47,830 --> 00:54:56,650
So on the first point it does seem to me that yeah, this is in the we're back to the issue of particularity of whether,

537
00:54:57,070 --> 00:55:02,670
you know, you know, in the one sense Stalin had clearly a right right to be at the table.

538
00:55:02,680 --> 00:55:08,140
In the other sense, it's hard to imagine a worse possible party to participate in the reconstruction of of Germany.

539
00:55:09,160 --> 00:55:15,310
But the and so the you know, the particularity issue is very is very real.

540
00:55:15,670 --> 00:55:23,469
And I don't have good resolution for that. It does seem that the the the the Allied Parties had a particular right to engage in

541
00:55:23,470 --> 00:55:30,580
this form of reconstruction and of necessity that goes by way of Germany as well,

542
00:55:31,450 --> 00:55:37,179
not the defeated German government, but the German people need to be included.

543
00:55:37,180 --> 00:55:42,909
It needed to be included. The Iraqi people who have whatever need to be included in the process of rebuilding institutions,

544
00:55:42,910 --> 00:55:46,360
because those institutions have to be representative institutions.

545
00:55:46,360 --> 00:55:49,360
And that's part of the the the premise of the duty of rescue.

546
00:55:49,660 --> 00:55:57,670
So so the the the people of the defeated state have a right, also a duty to govern themselves,

547
00:55:58,300 --> 00:56:02,800
have a right to to participate in that as to the parties around there.

548
00:56:03,400 --> 00:56:09,309
But the you know, and it's I mean,

549
00:56:09,310 --> 00:56:13,150
the interesting case is the one in which the parties have the right to participate in

550
00:56:13,150 --> 00:56:18,219
the reconstruction are actually not just marginally less able than other interveners,

551
00:56:18,220 --> 00:56:26,290
but clearly, clearly very inferior to other possible interveners in this process of reconstruction.

552
00:56:26,680 --> 00:56:31,780
And yeah, I mean, I have to think about the problem very quickly, Patrick.

553
00:56:32,940 --> 00:56:39,150
They can all at once the duty of risk given by a representative institutions rather than institutions in place.

554
00:56:41,370 --> 00:56:49,379
It's not because I was thinking of it as more robust than I analogised it to a duty to rescue that it's you know, who's on the scene.

555
00:56:49,380 --> 00:56:52,650
But the duty is a duty natural justice is a duty to.

556
00:56:52,750 --> 00:56:56,880
And it's just this continuity of that. It's a duty to create just institutions.

557
00:56:57,810 --> 00:57:02,670
Laura. Yeah, I have an observation that goes back to some of the things that Martin said.

558
00:57:02,670 --> 00:57:05,950
And I think that considerations about causality that.

559
00:57:07,700 --> 00:57:12,160
So you're talking about the rights of the victims.

560
00:57:12,170 --> 00:57:19,340
But the more we were discussing this issue, the more the idea of a right seemed to me to be somewhat misplaced just because,

561
00:57:19,700 --> 00:57:21,889
rather than it being a privilege for the victims,

562
00:57:21,890 --> 00:57:28,910
it looks like they have to take on a lot of burdens, like the right is actually the right to reconstruct and to set up a functioning state.

563
00:57:28,910 --> 00:57:34,160
And so I was wondering whether instead of contextualising the issue in terms of the rights of the victims,

564
00:57:34,160 --> 00:57:41,240
it wouldn't be it would make more sense to think of it in terms of the sort of remedial responsibilities

565
00:57:41,690 --> 00:57:47,560
that follow from the fact that this terrible thing is happening before any particular consciousness.

566
00:57:48,980 --> 00:57:51,709
And the idea of remedial responsibility I'm getting from David Miller.

567
00:57:51,710 --> 00:57:57,670
And when we think about the media responsibility, there are many different grounds for it and one might be more responsibility.

568
00:57:58,340 --> 00:58:06,440
In case the attacker was helpful, but he could also be called on responsibility as Charlie comes out benefiting.

569
00:58:06,470 --> 00:58:10,520
So if you you're not contributed to this particular war, but in a way or another, you benefit.

570
00:58:10,970 --> 00:58:15,680
Benefited from this law that you might have a duty to contribute to rebuilding.

571
00:58:15,980 --> 00:58:20,420
It can be your capacity, which is, I think, what Michael was looking at.

572
00:58:20,780 --> 00:58:28,940
And Miller also mentions community. So if you have particular ties to state, that has been really something that you might have an extra.

573
00:58:29,860 --> 00:58:32,319
So that's just an observation. But you're right. I mean,

574
00:58:32,320 --> 00:58:37,270
that the idea of this other strategy of just fighting the right of the victor was to do it by way

575
00:58:37,270 --> 00:58:43,120
of seeing the right is grounded in the duty rather than as grounded in some other sort of power.

576
00:58:43,460 --> 00:58:51,640
I mean, as to be successive, I mean, is that a position where it seems to me that the right could be seen as,

577
00:58:51,640 --> 00:58:58,629
you know, as a right party's coalition introduces part of the party's particular duties,

578
00:58:58,630 --> 00:59:08,170
you'd normally merely the country to the victors and said no to interfere with them in in the task of reconstruction and in particular,

579
00:59:08,170 --> 00:59:16,210
not to take up arms against insurgents against the victor, assuming the victor is the occupying forces.

580
00:59:16,300 --> 00:59:24,310
So I think you can remove, you know, the privilege and as a right in that sense.

581
00:59:24,640 --> 00:59:28,350
Yeah, well, certainly. Right. Right on the strategy of our country.

582
00:59:29,290 --> 00:59:38,690
Yeah. Now, on this strategy of argument, you know, it seems to me one of the two more promising powers, the right, the duty based one.

583
00:59:38,710 --> 00:59:38,980
Right.

584
00:59:38,980 --> 00:59:45,700
It will entail specific rights, rights to commandeer resources for this reconstruction, as well as, as you say, rights to insist on non-interference.

585
00:59:48,220 --> 00:59:55,170
I have a finger in the back of the field and we're thinking about things and the responsibilities of.

586
00:59:55,940 --> 01:00:01,790
The intervening party with the fig leaf predict the local ownership, the building.

587
01:00:03,570 --> 01:00:08,910
Institutions is key. And if you don't have that. You don't have the reconstruction.

588
01:00:09,860 --> 01:00:13,900
How do you. It's very difficult and it needs to be done.

589
01:00:13,910 --> 01:00:22,440
How do you get around saying that something is a duty? In order to fill this duty, it requires another actor and we really have no control.

590
01:00:22,790 --> 01:00:28,460
You hope that the local population are only construction, but if they don't, not duty.

591
01:00:28,910 --> 01:00:35,450
So what is it called? Limited duty of responsibility where you get around the local ownership.

592
01:00:36,650 --> 01:00:41,090
Right. This is a different version of Patrick's point that the success success is unlikely in any event.

593
01:00:41,090 --> 01:00:49,400
So how can we specify duty? I mean, it's it's a separate version because it relies on a third party performing its role as well.

594
01:00:50,630 --> 01:00:54,170
The I mean, you know, we can we specify the duty as a duty to try.

595
01:00:54,200 --> 01:01:01,170
And, in fact, I mean, you can. But to make best efforts to create institutions that will function well.

596
01:01:02,240 --> 01:01:10,820
You know, my question refers to what Laura just said. I'm just curious how how stringent the so-called duties of the we've done pre-construction.

597
01:01:10,950 --> 01:01:21,379
I mean, suppose there's a woman married basically to an arsehole and TV show time and however he also provides for her,

598
01:01:21,380 --> 01:01:24,890
you know, he buys some goods and and he pays the rent and so on.

599
01:01:25,400 --> 01:01:32,180
At one point, he's about to kill her and I come in there and safer and kill her.

600
01:01:32,330 --> 01:01:36,799
And of course, I would I would.

601
01:01:36,800 --> 01:01:45,740
I now be I don't think that up would be under legal duty and moral duty now to provide for the woman to do what the guy did before.

602
01:01:46,010 --> 01:01:52,250
So I don't see why in the state case, if we let the domestic technologies, then why intervene to who?

603
01:01:52,540 --> 01:02:00,050
Somebody, for example from genocide, should that be to then be responsible for then providing institutions or something for those they say?

604
01:02:03,030 --> 01:02:12,040
Right. I mean, all of the all of this sort of it's a common feature of these benevolence cases that they raise these issues of fairness and the and,

605
01:02:12,090 --> 01:02:13,710
you know, sort of what's a fair imputation?

606
01:02:14,310 --> 01:02:20,440
I mean, does the person who said it, it seems, you know, there's a general in fact, it's a general principle of institutional life.

607
01:02:20,440 --> 01:02:25,500
The good citizens are punished for their their goodness and that free riding is rewarded.

608
01:02:26,010 --> 01:02:29,820
But the. And so what do you think he has the duty to provide for?

609
01:02:30,270 --> 01:02:40,530
Yes, I think that when you step into a problem, you incur a set of responsibilities that are not just I mean, they come from a range of host.

610
01:02:40,530 --> 01:02:44,790
They're not necessarily. My sense is that causation is too normatively in order to do the work.

611
01:02:44,790 --> 01:02:51,990
But there were reasons to think that immersion in a in a problem situation comes with a host of further responsibilities.

612
01:02:52,000 --> 01:02:57,630
This is sort of the paradox of benevolence and that that, you know, there are,

613
01:02:58,770 --> 01:03:03,089
you know, principles of fairness that can allow us to say this is unfair,

614
01:03:03,090 --> 01:03:08,069
that I can make a I can make a claim on the aid of others to help rectify the situation.

615
01:03:08,070 --> 01:03:16,530
But we can't simply walk away having given the small amount of aid if more is left there.

616
01:03:17,460 --> 01:03:27,390
So, you know, you can't pull the drowning child out of the pool and leave him to leave him to, you know, dive exposure.

617
01:03:27,930 --> 01:03:31,860
You need to take that further step as well. Two quick fingers on that.

618
01:03:31,950 --> 01:03:37,439
Patrick and James. Sorry. And Victor. Yeah. I'm just to agree with you that it's my clarifications, I think,

619
01:03:37,440 --> 01:03:43,040
to kind of help the reason why you might think in the case of Iraq, that we do have duties.

620
01:03:43,050 --> 01:03:45,950
We have duties of reparations and duties to clean up the mess we've made.

621
01:03:45,960 --> 01:03:55,710
So you might think the unjust states of the for unjust wars have duties to clear up whatever they cause or in anybody's example,

622
01:03:55,710 --> 01:04:02,220
if you went in there and then broke the woman's arm like it because of callousness in defeat in health,

623
01:04:02,370 --> 01:04:06,120
then you might have a duty to kind of then you might take duty.

624
01:04:06,120 --> 01:04:09,569
But I just don't I don't see why you've done everything right.

625
01:04:09,570 --> 01:04:14,940
You you take you have the burden of what should you have to do about this?

626
01:04:14,940 --> 01:04:22,509
It just doesn't seem you seem very counter-intuitive. Complexity in some cases.

627
01:04:22,510 --> 01:04:26,320
This isn't a promise that a lot maybe.

628
01:04:27,460 --> 01:04:38,200
I know. And so there are cases where it's wrong to intervene unless certain conditions taken.

629
01:04:38,220 --> 01:04:43,240
So you go and save the person, but you can make someone else worse off as a result.

630
01:04:43,540 --> 01:04:47,619
And then it's permissible to save the person only on condition that you don't make this

631
01:04:47,620 --> 01:04:51,010
person worse off and you don't make them worse off if you don't help them afterwards.

632
01:04:51,490 --> 01:04:52,750
And that might be true.

633
01:04:52,750 --> 01:04:58,330
In some cases, it is permissible to save your own citizens, but only on condition that you don't make some other people worse off.

634
01:04:58,600 --> 01:05:03,940
And then you incur the duty in going toward defending yourself to these other people to make them better off.

635
01:05:04,210 --> 01:05:07,120
There are other cases where that just turns out not to be true.

636
01:05:07,740 --> 01:05:14,650
Then you don't incur the duty and you would be doing a bit more about how we're going to distribute some of these costs in some of these cases.

637
01:05:15,010 --> 01:05:18,910
Sometimes it's going to affect the courts responsible for making this big difference.

638
01:05:19,240 --> 01:05:21,490
Sometimes it's going to look really bad.

639
01:05:21,700 --> 01:05:30,490
So my suggestion is just that we just think about distribution of the Constitution in a slightly more complicated way with these considerations.

640
01:05:32,370 --> 01:05:39,390
Jeff. Very good points.

641
01:05:39,720 --> 01:05:53,510
The first. Sometimes I think interest rates may derive from a just cause which justifies the resort to war in the first place.

642
01:05:54,170 --> 01:06:02,899
So. One example might be that after a war has ended, the other side has surrendered.

643
01:06:02,900 --> 01:06:05,300
And so on the side,

644
01:06:05,310 --> 01:06:18,170
that just side that has fought may have a right to expect complete disarmament and defeated enemy to prevent any further threat in the future.

645
01:06:18,170 --> 01:06:22,520
Which could could arise from the nature of. A justified.

646
01:06:24,600 --> 01:06:32,000
This is the only way to. Star point is that.

647
01:06:36,380 --> 01:06:44,300
In the case of. Again, but just for the defence against the Knicks.

648
01:06:48,300 --> 01:06:51,970
British opens the door to.

649
01:06:54,830 --> 01:07:02,840
In that kind of case, even though the allied powers did actually contribute to the reconstruction.

650
01:07:03,200 --> 01:07:06,740
Sure. Various ways. It wasn't something which.

651
01:07:12,550 --> 01:07:17,280
So I think there's this certainly. I think. At least the.

652
01:07:18,570 --> 01:07:27,210
Our understanding of the sources of whatever you think the duty may be to aid.

653
01:07:28,410 --> 01:07:33,010
The reconstruction. Cases of World War Two.

654
01:07:33,030 --> 01:07:36,610
Certainly the right thing to do. Certainly worked out the best.

655
01:07:37,770 --> 01:07:46,920
Or to claim that Germany was the right sound on the first on the first point.

656
01:07:47,520 --> 01:07:58,890
I certainly agree that some antecedent rights will flow through the war to create a state a had a right to a certain border.

657
01:07:59,250 --> 01:08:02,940
There's a takeover of that land. State aid wins the work. They have a right.

658
01:08:03,210 --> 01:08:04,980
They have the right. They had to the border.

659
01:08:04,980 --> 01:08:10,920
They had a question will be whether they have a further right to the buffer zone around that border and so on.

660
01:08:11,460 --> 01:08:17,730
And that was the sort of question I was interested in. But the the the threat issue is actually the disarmament.

661
01:08:17,760 --> 01:08:23,430
One seems to me to be precisely the point that calls for the the further elaboration of the victor's right.

662
01:08:23,730 --> 01:08:31,139
But state aid didn't have an antecedent right to disarm state the because of a threat that state posed and that that's the preventive

663
01:08:31,140 --> 01:08:40,710
war rationale that it seems to fall outside the just war that just cause harm but to to take out take out a gathering threat.

664
01:08:41,550 --> 01:08:52,050
It wasn't until the war began that they acquired this further right to intrude into the disarmament process, to to impose a disarmament.

665
01:08:53,230 --> 01:08:56,430
And that was that's at least. Anyway, that's how I see it. So.

666
01:08:56,580 --> 01:09:03,360
So it's. So winning the war or the fact that there was a war made a difference to the right.

667
01:09:03,360 --> 01:09:13,470
They had to impose the disarmament on the other party. On the second point that Germany didn't have a claim on the Allies,

668
01:09:16,500 --> 01:09:24,330
Germany as a state may not have been in a moral position to make such a claim, but Germans had a claim.

669
01:09:24,820 --> 01:09:30,570
The claim of rescue is what I'm suggesting. They had a claim not to be left in anarchy.

670
01:09:31,320 --> 01:09:37,750
And so then having this interesting discussion of whether that's a claim on the world or claim that's specific to that,

671
01:09:37,890 --> 01:09:42,390
you know, like the like and I'm still scratching my head about that.

672
01:09:42,390 --> 01:09:51,020
But it does seem I want to say that the people of the defeated state do have do have a right to that form of assistance, just.

673
01:09:52,830 --> 01:10:04,380
Fun I used to think about. The aim of prevention of future aggression in the way that you suggest is that I refer to it as conditional,

674
01:10:04,440 --> 01:10:10,169
just because it is one that is it's an aim that is permissible to pursue by means of

675
01:10:10,170 --> 01:10:16,110
war only if there is an independent just cause that justifies the resort to war.

676
01:10:16,110 --> 01:10:21,210
And that activates the further right. Just. I'm no longer.

677
01:10:22,640 --> 01:10:27,610
I think that's the right way to think about it. And I actually think that there can be cases where.

678
01:10:28,660 --> 01:10:41,330
Justified in practice. It's probably better to require some further testing, like an actual active aggression from.

679
01:10:42,510 --> 01:10:48,330
Prevention and deterrence of both these. Difficult.

680
01:10:49,090 --> 01:10:52,209
Things that we do think can be pursued in war.

681
01:10:52,210 --> 01:10:56,200
But a way to be activated by some other.

682
01:10:59,370 --> 01:11:02,570
So you would see me, right? Which would probably disagree down here.

683
01:11:02,910 --> 01:11:07,440
So you would see the active aggression by the other party as just having a kind of epistemic significances,

684
01:11:07,440 --> 01:11:10,920
proving that there really is a very significant threat. The threat that sufficient to.

685
01:11:11,220 --> 01:11:12,510
Well, I think it may be it may be.

686
01:11:12,510 --> 01:11:22,770
It just you know, it may create a just game on its own to be an issue of aggression, but also that the start of a civil war, there was a fingerprint.

687
01:11:23,470 --> 01:11:33,030
King may have stood on its head again. I'm not I I agree with you to this extent that that about the case of the Germans.

688
01:11:33,030 --> 01:11:36,420
Certainly innocent people in Germany have.

689
01:11:37,770 --> 01:11:49,030
To rescue in a case in which so such a high proportion of the adult population is implicated in.

690
01:11:49,860 --> 01:11:55,840
In various ways in the war that their state was fighting.

691
01:11:56,440 --> 01:12:02,649
I think it diminishes claims to assistance going to have is an important principle I think you're right particularly innocent people.

692
01:12:02,650 --> 01:12:04,370
And it appears that you clearly don't.

693
01:12:05,080 --> 01:12:10,750
Yeah, that's I mean, I just I would just say it seems to be actually a universal human right, a right to a right to governance.

694
01:12:12,550 --> 01:12:21,129
Do you want to come in? Yeah. I just wonder what happens with the claim to rescue collides with the claim to deter future future aggression.

695
01:12:21,130 --> 01:12:28,120
Because you talk about deterrence in terms of reshaping political institutions and in providing new institutions.

696
01:12:28,480 --> 01:12:32,980
But on the other hand, deterrence is about a credible force now to prevent somebody from doing something in the future.

697
01:12:33,250 --> 01:12:37,860
Yeah, the force becomes credible because we destroy infrastructures. Now the future, you won't risk it.

698
01:12:38,170 --> 01:12:42,490
So the terms of the window, if I say, well, I'm going to destroy your infrastructure, but don't worry, I'll rebuild them.

699
01:12:43,180 --> 01:12:48,610
So who's right? Trump is this. I thought okay, I thought you're going in a different place, which was also.

700
01:12:48,610 --> 01:12:51,969
Let's go there. Yeah, right.

701
01:12:51,970 --> 01:12:59,860
The well right. The, the it depends on the infrastructure.

702
01:12:59,860 --> 01:13:04,389
So eliminating military infrastructure seems to be I mean, deterrence is also what I had in mind.

703
01:13:04,390 --> 01:13:10,330
Destroying civilian. Yes. Yeah. And yeah.

704
01:13:10,630 --> 01:13:14,260
Now, the other tension I had in mind is what if the representative institutions that you install are

705
01:13:14,260 --> 01:13:19,610
quite likely to bring about an even more hostile regime to operate conflict with deterrence?

706
01:13:19,670 --> 01:13:28,299
That's actually. Yeah and right. Those two can clearly and clearly come at each other and I don't have to think about that.

707
01:13:28,300 --> 01:13:31,510
I don't know David and myself.

708
01:13:31,830 --> 01:13:36,340
Oh, might maybe enough to deter it, to destroy the infrastructure, even if you rebuild them.

709
01:13:37,180 --> 01:13:44,229
So it might be that you you would need to give an argument for why destroying the infrastructure,

710
01:13:44,230 --> 01:13:49,750
even if then you rebuild them, could not be enough to deter you might be that that would be enough.

711
01:13:49,990 --> 01:13:55,420
The rehabilitation of this. Right?

712
01:13:55,640 --> 01:13:58,780
Yeah. Okay.

713
01:13:59,170 --> 01:14:02,560
Yeah. Where? You need your rehabilitation. Not to be cushy enough there.

714
01:14:05,560 --> 01:14:08,710
Yeah. So it was just a quick follow up on them on Bob Underwood's point.

715
01:14:09,310 --> 01:14:13,180
So Bob was saying that if you're inclined to take the cemetery seriously,

716
01:14:13,180 --> 01:14:22,540
you might want to think about different kinds of just regimes for different kinds of ad bellum status intervention and postpartum situations.

717
01:14:22,540 --> 01:14:24,040
And your response to that was, well,

718
01:14:24,460 --> 01:14:29,200
that might be okay if we had some kind of Islamic body that could tell you which ones are just too much as I'm just.

719
01:14:29,200 --> 01:14:34,809
But we'll be done and we have to have some kind of, you know, levelling account that doesn't differentiate in that way.

720
01:14:34,810 --> 01:14:41,350
And it seems to me that one of the mistakes that that makes a lot of the asymmetry arguments to make is that it assumes that

721
01:14:41,350 --> 01:14:49,749
the the the the only or perhaps the primary target for these kinds of rules are the person whose behaviour would be directly,

722
01:14:49,750 --> 01:14:55,389
you know, have you and this me that these a importantly other functions as well.

723
01:14:55,390 --> 01:15:03,520
So one of the things that they do is that they tie the response of third parties, you know, other other nations, other states,

724
01:15:03,520 --> 01:15:16,069
international agencies, when they're considering how to interact with, recognise, intervene and then postpone activities of the of the occupier.

725
01:15:16,070 --> 01:15:22,660
Right. So and so it's a set of rules to differentiate on the basis of these and considerations could still be important

726
01:15:23,110 --> 01:15:29,170
in terms of the judgements of these third parties will make about the actions of the of the occupier.

727
01:15:30,530 --> 01:15:37,929
Right. So, so the images is that we I mean, we have a we have a pronouncement made by some third party that the right side,

728
01:15:37,930 --> 01:15:42,309
one for the wrong side one and that sort of privilege is our standard or whether or not I just yeah,

729
01:15:42,310 --> 01:15:45,969
I mean, you know, third parties, you know, other states, they will make their assessment.

730
01:15:45,970 --> 01:15:51,250
Right. And so the question it ought to be guided by their assessment of the had done justice seems to

731
01:15:51,250 --> 01:15:55,150
me that a lot of circumstances it might be entirely appropriate that they should be guided.

732
01:15:55,390 --> 01:16:00,650
Yeah. I mean, even if we don't have a, you know, kind of an impartial authority to make that call.

733
01:16:00,820 --> 01:16:10,809
Right, I guess I'm just and then I can imagine institutions which render verdicts, but it seems to me those verdicts are likely to be contested,

734
01:16:10,810 --> 01:16:15,320
so deeply contested in virtually all cases that, you know,

735
01:16:15,370 --> 01:16:19,659
you'll have conflicting institutions are very conflicting verdicts or you'll have to satisfaction those verdicts.

736
01:16:19,660 --> 01:16:25,809
And that was the that was well behind my saying above that it seemed to me one

737
01:16:25,810 --> 01:16:31,360
wants a uniform set of sort of delineations of the rights of the vector that,

738
01:16:31,360 --> 01:16:35,379
you know, not rather than an asymmetric set which depend on some third party endorsement,

739
01:16:35,380 --> 01:16:38,740
because the more expansive set of rights will be deeply contested.

740
01:16:39,670 --> 01:16:49,570
But in principle, one could have such a set of institutions but wanted to come on that just maybe, perhaps an example of what they're talking about.

741
01:16:51,370 --> 01:16:53,709
Just sort of contextualise it completely.

742
01:16:53,710 --> 01:17:04,390
If I if we had an army that had a robust moral doctrine and in that moral document was a doctrine of use first column based on this imagery.

743
01:17:04,390 --> 01:17:12,100
And I get some sort of order from my national command authority saying that the war is this specific sort of thing, while useful as well,

744
01:17:12,100 --> 01:17:16,089
and seems to me a way to think of it as the necessary sufficient conditions to

745
01:17:16,090 --> 01:17:20,290
satisfy that just cause at least one of the things that we consider possible.

746
01:17:21,100 --> 01:17:26,679
And so if my national command authority is telling me that my just policy for war is a certain sort of thing,

747
01:17:26,680 --> 01:17:34,360
let's say paradigmatic national defence and I and I go and I told my doctrine to start to do my planning and then lo and behold,

748
01:17:34,360 --> 01:17:39,190
I start to notice it's a sort of recalcitrant data and these sorts of things and say, well, look,

749
01:17:39,910 --> 01:17:46,720
you say that I'm going to do these other sorts of things, but we don't see those conditions sort of on the ground of our planning.

750
01:17:46,930 --> 01:17:56,810
Right. This seems to be one, either it doesn't meet the U.S. criteria that you're talking about or it's a very different sort of thing.

751
01:17:56,830 --> 01:17:59,889
We still have a problem. It's just a very different sort of problem.

752
01:17:59,890 --> 01:18:02,930
And that's what I was trying to.

753
01:18:07,470 --> 01:18:10,800
Can I go back to the busy place? Oh, yeah. Okay.

754
01:18:11,520 --> 01:18:19,920
So I was on the street minding my business and no one because I COVID-19 the kids by the side of distress.

755
01:18:20,640 --> 01:18:25,470
Now, surely, I mean, I believe I'm the voice. How does it happen to be possible?

756
01:18:26,700 --> 01:18:30,899
You know, to have a baby? Just to clarify what you see.

757
01:18:30,900 --> 01:18:38,490
Is it you view the mind you to me would be the stronger for the fact that I in the

758
01:18:38,490 --> 01:18:44,310
case what I am the one who lifted the baby out of the punch in the first instance.

759
01:18:48,560 --> 01:18:57,530
Yeah. I mean, initially I was very taken aback by what you've taken by the example I mentioned that Phi Phi,

760
01:18:57,530 --> 01:19:00,700
the principle that the exam was meant to strike.

761
01:19:01,490 --> 01:19:12,380
I mean, no one, it seems to me as an individual, isn't it, to provide continuing assistance to a woman who happens to be resources, you know.

762
01:19:12,680 --> 01:19:23,749
Right. So. So. So I suppose what I'm trying to grapple with, oddly, is the sort of that, you know, there might be general breaches of systems.

763
01:19:23,750 --> 01:19:34,520
There are cases where in discharging this, do harm the beneficiary of those duties in a way that would impose on us a further duty to have,

764
01:19:34,520 --> 01:19:37,860
at least in the short term, but perhaps not, you know,

765
01:19:37,880 --> 01:19:42,740
beyond the limits that no one, in any event,

766
01:19:42,770 --> 01:19:48,200
isn't a duty to go in for the sake of us and the other cases where we discharge a

767
01:19:48,200 --> 01:19:54,530
general duty of assistance in a way that not home but means the intended beneficiary.

768
01:19:55,320 --> 01:19:59,240
And so the question that arises to do you see do you see what I mean?

769
01:19:59,510 --> 01:20:08,089
Yeah. So so in the let's take first the non-Mormon case, just where it's a general duty of assistance.

770
01:20:08,090 --> 01:20:11,360
So right now we have a duty to adopt the child.

771
01:20:11,420 --> 01:20:21,110
But the it's great, you know, but it seems to me you have a duty not just to leave to alleviate the most immediate source of the distress,

772
01:20:21,110 --> 01:20:24,260
but to ensure that in some sense the child is out of danger.

773
01:20:24,650 --> 01:20:31,750
And that that was the point of my saying. You're you're mixed into this for more than just the other senior duty in your own country.

774
01:20:31,820 --> 01:20:41,410
Presume that you know the justification. I must have said the justification for the duty if you see in the fact that I was the one who did the rescue.

775
01:20:41,420 --> 01:20:45,290
So I was thinking about the case where I didn't do the right thing in the rescue.

776
01:20:45,290 --> 01:20:48,860
But you brought your son. He's busy. He can't be bothered to ring the ambulance.

777
01:20:49,310 --> 01:20:52,730
And I happened to be there, too, so. Right.

778
01:20:52,870 --> 01:20:58,009
I don't think I don't think it matters whether you're you're the one who pulled the baby out or whether you're here on the scene.

779
01:20:58,010 --> 01:21:04,309
It's a it's simply that you're sort of implication in the situation that I think matters who were being on the scene is what

780
01:21:04,310 --> 01:21:11,780
generates that the duties that are more extensive than you might prefer and give you a claim on the assistance of others.

781
01:21:11,780 --> 01:21:16,170
But in the absence of others help, you're not entitled to simply walk away and say, It's not fair that I have to say so.

782
01:21:16,190 --> 01:21:23,120
Then we have, if I may. So then we have cases where in discharging the duty of assistance to be home.

783
01:21:23,510 --> 01:21:34,190
Yeah. Yeah. The beneficiary too, either directly or indirectly, we take away the woman's source of support.

784
01:21:35,540 --> 01:21:46,270
But I mean, I think, you know, there are limits to what we may do, it seems to me, to what we must do, you know, for the sake of others, you know,

785
01:21:46,310 --> 01:21:56,660
even if we are in part responsible, you know, for the predicament, certainly in those cases where we carried out the rescue in order to benefit.

786
01:21:57,020 --> 01:22:02,670
And so I think that's annoying that you press Yeah.

787
01:22:04,530 --> 01:22:08,269
Yeah. No, this is a very I mean, I think it's a hard that's it's a hard issue.

788
01:22:08,270 --> 01:22:12,319
It's a hard issue. And part of the sort of a walk away point, when can you wash it?

789
01:22:12,320 --> 01:22:13,190
Wash your hands?

790
01:22:13,190 --> 01:22:20,600
And it's clearly not at the moment of first convenience and it's not at the point of sort of moral, emotional or financial bankruptcy.

791
01:22:21,020 --> 01:22:24,710
But where we're along that spectrum and I don't I don't have an answer.

792
01:22:24,980 --> 01:22:29,870
But if people want to come in on that, I'm sorry. So this is have answer, gentlemen, the great shirt.

793
01:22:29,870 --> 01:22:34,300
And Victor, I just wondered, I mean, surely in.

794
01:22:37,360 --> 01:22:50,430
You have anybody who could rescue the baby ought to be an initial rescuer for all of us to get some of the baby out.

795
01:22:50,940 --> 01:22:55,340
It seems more fair. Sure.

796
01:22:56,540 --> 01:23:00,560
Yes. I'm not saying that. But what if they don't?

797
01:23:01,970 --> 01:23:06,230
Do you still have to do some insisting that you do?

798
01:23:06,380 --> 01:23:10,040
You have a duty to continue efforts, even if others are not doing their fair share.

799
01:23:11,390 --> 01:23:16,970
Right. Okay. It's certainly true that you have a fair claim on the resources of others.

800
01:23:18,150 --> 01:23:21,200
But I thought it felt particularly to the person who.

801
01:23:23,030 --> 01:23:28,190
Yeah. It doesn't depend anymore. On that comes a response. Right, right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

802
01:23:28,220 --> 01:23:32,150
No, I acknowledge that your being the rescuer doesn't, I think determine whether you have to do this.

803
01:23:32,400 --> 01:23:39,490
You should be constrained. It would be rude to say, Oh, well, all you have to do is get him out of the boat.

804
01:23:39,650 --> 01:23:44,150
What you do, that's not entirely enough.

805
01:23:44,210 --> 01:23:53,000
It seems to me, to be innocent of duty as a duty to the child in such a way that he's out of the this immediate danger.

806
01:23:54,290 --> 01:23:59,290
You know, you could say the same thing. He would say as if, you know, from the having been killed.

807
01:23:59,640 --> 01:24:10,580
Suppose the house gets bombed then it wouldn't your duty to have for the night and provide her with shelter etc. so you might be able to.

808
01:24:10,790 --> 01:24:18,620
Yeah. Hurry. I think my point is basically say that it's the sort of thing again,

809
01:24:19,850 --> 01:24:27,590
because just because you said all I know is that, you know, you accept that the causal chain doesn't matter.

810
01:24:27,620 --> 01:24:33,229
We sort of now symmetrically situated. But I think at this point he strongly denies that your duty is less so.

811
01:24:33,230 --> 01:24:38,240
And it's not just it's not just you just you've done nothing about root out of the things you see.

812
01:24:38,390 --> 01:24:43,640
So I don't have any special duty because I was the one who took the baby out of the body in the first place.

813
01:24:44,030 --> 01:24:49,640
It's the my duty is now lesser than that because I've done I've done something already.

814
01:24:49,850 --> 01:24:55,490
So, you know, having already borne a cost, I now have a claim that, okay, whoever does the next bit,

815
01:24:56,540 --> 01:25:03,100
if no one else is going to do it, I'm the second duty, but I have a lesser duty to do the next bit because I've done somebody.

816
01:25:03,270 --> 01:25:07,280
That was a slightly different point to the one you responded to, I think.

817
01:25:07,520 --> 01:25:14,089
Okay. Right. No, I mean, actually, my thought, my considered attitude towards customer responsibilities that is relevant for

818
01:25:14,090 --> 01:25:18,500
neither necessary nor sufficient for sort of full moral reparative duties.

819
01:25:18,770 --> 01:25:29,480
And if it's if one has a duty of rescue, whether or not one caused the injury, I mean, that's simply a nature of the case.

820
01:25:30,500 --> 01:25:38,239
Others also and it may or may not the causal responsibility in this particular case may not particularised the duty to you.

821
01:25:38,240 --> 01:25:45,530
Any anybody else also has that duty. But I do think there is causal significance to being sort of already in the chain of rescue.

822
01:25:45,920 --> 01:25:55,549
And, you know, this is this general background methodological principle of trying to square a moral theory with in some sense,

823
01:25:55,550 --> 01:26:00,770
the kind of sociology of moral practice. But, you know, I mean it yes.

824
01:26:00,770 --> 01:26:03,799
It's a message we are have to make.

825
01:26:03,800 --> 01:26:06,140
The world is a mess. We have three more fingers and not a lot of time.

826
01:26:06,140 --> 01:26:13,100
So could you just please, like Victor David in law state your your input, tell them like you have illustrated the matter.

827
01:26:13,190 --> 01:26:22,220
You were thinking about what happens when you could do more for the people that you've harmed and then rescues and or for other people.

828
01:26:22,520 --> 01:26:25,309
So imagine that there's the baby that you pulled out of the pond and there's all

829
01:26:25,310 --> 01:26:29,060
these other baby steps up alongside the point of being pulled out by other people.

830
01:26:29,300 --> 01:26:35,270
Do you have any particular reason to pick out this baby that you've saved to do more for this baby, these other babies?

831
01:26:36,140 --> 01:26:39,960
Look, especially if you could help some of the other babies born with them.

832
01:26:40,250 --> 01:26:44,600
It's not upset at all listening. And that's exactly the way I thought about the Walkers, too.

833
01:26:44,600 --> 01:26:49,510
But you guys were always on you make them really badly off the battle, down to this brutal dictatorship.

834
01:26:49,520 --> 01:26:55,460
Not all these other people that you can help. Yeah. Do you have any special reparative obligations to this state that you home

835
01:26:55,700 --> 01:26:59,510
where you could just provide humanitarian aid to a whole load of other people?

836
01:26:59,520 --> 01:27:05,929
Like that's a real practical world problem where it's not obvious that the answer is that you should reconstruct the state,

837
01:27:05,930 --> 01:27:08,339
that you've gone home for these reasons.

838
01:27:08,340 --> 01:27:14,630
And what it calls responsibility is important as a very significant real world indication of what you should do in these cases.

839
01:27:14,930 --> 01:27:19,340
David, if you so I think maybe there is a way to say yes to that reason.

840
01:27:19,350 --> 01:27:23,720
So why don't you go this is why this kind of just complete fantasy account that,

841
01:27:23,810 --> 01:27:27,680
you know, other people just seems phenomenal logically so wide of the mark,

842
01:27:27,680 --> 01:27:36,420
right this you know that that somebody who's been involved in a rescue pulling a child out of a pond or rescuing an animal or whatever phenomenon,

843
01:27:36,440 --> 01:27:40,700
logically you feel exactly as, Chris, if you meddle in that, you feel engaged in that.

844
01:27:40,700 --> 01:27:45,620
Right. You don't feel as though, well, I've done this, but now, you know, in fairness ground, somebody else should.

845
01:27:45,890 --> 01:27:49,580
You want to be the one if you want to stay engaged in that.

846
01:27:49,580 --> 01:27:50,780
Now, why might that be?

847
01:27:51,110 --> 01:27:59,960
One reason that might be is that being the rescue of that child, of that person establishes a kind of strong kind of relationship between you,

848
01:28:00,330 --> 01:28:04,520
maybe a little bit akin to the relationship that you have in situations of friendship with family.

849
01:28:04,820 --> 01:28:11,390
You know, so with friends, we can say, well, you know, this friend of mine, Jesus, I've been helping him for all this time through somebody else.

850
01:28:12,680 --> 01:28:17,180
He's my friend. I want to help him more. And it seems to me that the situations of rescue, phenomenology,

851
01:28:17,180 --> 01:28:22,370
that's how we feel that you pull something out of a if you're your rescue and you want to be the one,

852
01:28:22,610 --> 01:28:27,229
you feel that kind of further obligation, which I think is a little bit similar to the obligation.

853
01:28:27,230 --> 01:28:30,350
We feel different. Yeah. No, you might be simultaneously resentful as well.

854
01:28:30,860 --> 01:28:35,299
Yeah, right. Which you also have. Yeah. Laura, very quick last word.

855
01:28:35,300 --> 01:28:41,420
I think it's I think in support of what David just said so and to the effect that considerations of fairness

856
01:28:41,420 --> 01:28:48,469
do not seem to have much of a bearing on cases of rescue when you're acting on duty to help those in need,

857
01:28:48,470 --> 01:28:56,150
so long as this is not constitute one set for ourselves. So think about a case in which you have five, five families, five children in the pond.

858
01:28:56,630 --> 01:29:01,790
Now, if it's not too costly to yourself to say all the five that I think you should say for the five,

859
01:29:01,790 --> 01:29:08,540
you are under a duty to save all the five, even though fairness considerations, each person should save one.

860
01:29:08,540 --> 01:29:11,810
But you know, if you opt out of that duty, you might have to save.

861
01:29:13,160 --> 01:29:18,680
Four guys, and that's not unfair. That's just in the nature of the duty, so long as it's not a prosecutor's office.

862
01:29:20,350 --> 01:29:24,500
Mr. Latham, thank you very much. The trial being pulled out of the Parliament.