1FACULTY OF HUMANITIESSCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCESPOLITICS

COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 2016/17

POLI60181GOVERNING IN AN UNJUST WORLD: JUSTICE AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONSSemester: 1Credits: 15

Convenors: Dr. Miriam Ronzoni, Dr Alex Leveringhaus

Dr. Miriam RonzoniRoom: Arthur Lewis Building, 4th floor, room 4.057 Telephone: 0161 275 4906 Email: miriam.ronzoni@manchester.ac.uk Office Hours: Mondays 11-12; Fridays 2-3.

N.B. Miriam will be on maternity leave from November 7 th onwards

Dr. Alex LeveringhausRoom: Arthur Lewis Building, 4th floor, room 4.003 (from Nov 7th) Telephone: 0161 275 4906 (from November 7th)Email: alexander.leveringhaus@manchester.ac.uk Office Hours: TBC.

For all office hours, please book an appointment via SOHOL at:

1

https://mats.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/mats/sohol/StudentLogin.aspEmail for an appointment outside these times.

NB: No office hours during reading week (Oct 31 st - Nov 4 th ), but extensive office hours during the preceding week (Oct 24 th -28 th ), as well as in the last week of term. More specific information will follow .

Seminars: Mondays, 15-17, Roscoe 2.10

Reading Week: October 31st - November 4th 2016

Communication: Students must read their University e-mails regularly, as important information will be communicated in this way.

Assessment: Essay 75% (due on Monday, January 16th 2017), Presentation 15%, Participation 10%

Course ContentQuestions of global justice, democracy, and legitimacy are at the forefront of both current political affairs and debates in contemporary political theory. In this course we shall become acquainted with these theoretical debates and learn how to use them in order to develop reasoned, informed views on some of the most pressing problems of global politics, such as global labour standards; world trade; migration; tax avoidance; climate change; humanitarian intervention; terrorism; and how state sovereignty should be conceived of in the contemporary global order. In so doing, we shall both assess existing international institutions, and think of new possible institutional solutions to address pressing global problems.

The first part of the course looks, first, at whether three important moral and political categories – namely social justice, democracy, and legitimacy –, which are normally used to assess the performance of state institutions, apply beyond borders. Are there valid claims of social justice, democratic accountability, and legitimacy in the international sphere? Why / why not? Are they the same that apply within borders? And do they simply set standards to evaluate existing international institutions, or do they also ground a case for the establishment of new institutions altogether? We shall then move on to considering how these questions play out in three crucial areas of economic policy, namely 1) international trade; 2) tax competition and avoidance; and 3) global labour standards and supply chains. In so doing, it will become ever more apparent how “governing an unjust world” might be in tension with the principle of state sovereignty.

The second part of the course is then particularly focused on whether the existence of sovereign states hinders, in a non-ideal world, the pursuit of justice, and whether state sovereignty can, and should, be curtailed. After outlining the concept of state sovereignty and assessing various arguments for and against it, the course looks at four applied issues that have important implications for governing an unjust world, and which are to some extent in tension with state sovereignty: (1) on what basis, if any, sovereign states can be holders of a right to self-defence against aggression by other entities; (2) how states can be held accountable for the deployment of remote-controlled weaponry against non-state actors; (3) responses to climate change; and (4) the state’s right to admit or refuse entry to non-members. 

2

Course Aims and OutcomesOn completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

Articulate the contents and underlying assumptions of various approaches to international justice and democracy.

Employ a rigorous analytical approach in critically evaluating the key theories tackled in the course.

Draw on normative theories to develop their own informed views on concrete questions that are prominent in current global affair.

Sketch, on that basis, institutional and policy proposals.

OrganizationThe first, and possibly also the second, session of the course will be constructed around (a highly interactive) lecture, which will introduce key concepts and theories to be employed throughout the course. Discussion and work in smaller groups will be envisaged at this stage already, and readings will be assigned in preparation for these sessions; you must come prepared to participate actively from the very start (and you may choose to write your essay on a topic from these first two sessions, if you so wish). The rest of the course will consist in weekly two-hour seminars. The structure of each seminar will be as follows:

1. Student presentation(s) 2. Audience questioning of student presenters3. Discussion of questions posed by convenors (posted on Blackboard each week)4. Discussion of questions posed by presenters

1. The seminar discussions each week will be introduced by presentations by one or two students. You will be required to give one such in-class presentation, possibly in collaboration with another student (more information below.)

2. At the end of the presentations, other students will have the opportunity to ask the presenter(s) any questions of clarification, or questions that critique the presentation. This section should not fall into full-blown substantive discussion.

3. All students (whether they are presenting that week or not) should come to all seminars prepared to discuss their answers to the questions listed in the course guide for that week. Be prepared to discuss your answers with the class.

4. The presenters will each pose at least one discussion question to the class (you may not simply repeat the discussion questions on Blackboard!). While the questions in the course guide aim at comprehension of readings, the questions posed by presenters should aim to take us into criticism of the readings, or critical reflection on broader or underlying issues alluded to in the readings. You are welcome to consult your lecturer in formulating these questions when it is your turn to present.

3

Throughout, the discussion will be facilitated and guided by the course convenor, who might occasionally introduce or clarify some points.

Components 2, 3, and 4 above will contribute to your participation mark for the course. Attendance at the seminars is compulsory. If you know in advance that circumstances beyond your control will prevent you from attending a seminar, you should email the lecturer of a given week (see below) as soon as possible to explain your absence.

Assessment

Presentation mark (15%): Students are required to give a ten-minute presentation in one of the seminars. The aim of presentations is to analyse the arguments contained in the required reading for a given week. The presentation will be assessed according to the following criteria: introduction of the topic; clear structure and clear delivery; accuracy of interpretation of the argument(s); quality and depth of critical analysis; identification of issues for discussion. Students will receive individual grades for their presentations. If there is more than one presenter, it is up to the presenters to divide the week’s

readings amongst themselves, into roughly equal portions. The presentations should run for a total of 20 minutes overall. What is sought is clarity of analysis, explanation, and expression. The idea is that you should provide the class with a clear framework for discussion of the

reading. Your presentation should:1. Include a brief summary of the major arguments in the required readings;2. Raise one or two problems for the arguments made in each of the required readings you

have summarised;3. Give your own overall conclusion about the success or failure of the approaches under

examination;4. Pose one discussion question to the class. You should close your presentation by putting forward a discussion question. You will be required to prepare either a handout for your presentation, or PowerPoint

slides (you can do both if you wish, but you don’t have to). If you choose to do a handout, you will need to bring enough for everyone.

Participation Mark (10%): Students are required actively to participate in seminars, having done the appropriate reading and to give presentations as arranged. More on how participation is assessed will be explained in the introductory session, but one thing should be clear: do not be afraid of making mistakes. Ability to learn from one’s misunderstandings will be rewarded.

Because this class is a seminar, its success rests in the ongoing participation of everyone.

Class participation entails coming to class having completed the reading, being willing to contribute to discussion, being willing to monitor one’s own contributions to discussion such that class is not dominated by the views of only a few persons, and being able to listen attentively yet critically to one’s fellow students.

You should come to class with an answer to the prep question(s) provided for that week.

If you miss a seminar without good reason, marks will be deducted. If you have a good reason, email us as soon as possible.

Essay Mark (75%)4

The due date for the assessed essay is 16 January, 3pm. Students must propose their own essay title. (A large part of good theory is coming

up with good questions.) You must receive approval of your essay title via email by 16 December (so seek

approval well prior to this date!). The essay must be submitted online to Turnitin via the module Blackboard site.

Essays should be 3,500 words in length, plus or minus 350 words. You must indicate your word count at the end of the essay (no indication or a wrong counting will lead to a deduction of marks according to University regulations).

You must not put your name anywhere on your essay. You must put your student ID number as the ‘title’ of your essay in the online

submission. Format: Essays must be typed on A4 and double-spaced throughout using a 12pt

font. Bibliography and referencing: A lack of a proper bibliography and appropriate

references will be penalised by the deduction of marks (to a maximum of 10 marks if the scholarly apparatus is entirely inadequate). You can find out about good bibliography and referencing practices in the MA course handbook. We do not mind which system you use, as long as you use it consistently.

Plagiarism : Plagiarism is a serious offence and students should consult the university’s statement on plagiarism. This can be found in their programme handbooks or Taught Masters and Postgraduate Diploma Student Guide which is distributed during registration or which can be obtained from the Graduate Office.

Extensions : Extensions are granted only by the MA Director and must be sought prior to the deadline. Full details regarding extensions can be found in your programme handbook or from the Graduate Office.

Course OverviewWeek 1. Introduction; Global Justice, Redistribution, and PovertyWeek 2. Global Democracy and Legitimacy Week 3. World TradeWeek 4. Tax Competition and Tax HavensWeek 5. Labour in a Globalized World

Week 6. Reading Week – No course session

Week 7. Sovereignty and International LawWeek 8. Armed Conflict and AggressionWeek 9: Drones and CounterterrorismWeek 10: Climate Change and Environmental JusticeWeek 11: Migration

Week by week topic descriptions and readings

Week 1: 26 September: Global Justice, Redistribution, and PovertyA general overview of the course will be given, and we will allocate presentations as well as discuss admin issues of various kinds.

Is it appropriate to assess the current global order with standards of social and distributive justice? Many contemporary political philosophers believe that fellow citizens owe to each other demanding duties of social and distributive justice. But do such duties also exist across

5

the world’s population? Does economic globalization, with the increased global interdependence it generates, have an impact on how we should answer these questions? Or should the global order be criticized, instead, for its (alleged) active causal role in generating poverty, independently of considerations of global inequality?

Required Readings: T. Pogge, Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice, Politics, Philosophy, and

Economics (2002); Miller, David, ‘Against Global Egalitarianism’, The Journal of Ethics, 9 (1/2) (2005). M. Risse, “How Does the Global Order Harm the Poor?” Philosophy and Public

Affairs (2005);

Further Reading: C. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (PUP: 1999), Part three; J. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (Penguin: 2005),

chapter 15; S. Meckled-Garcia, “On the Very Idea of Cosmopolitan Justice: Constructivism and

International Agency”, Journal of Political Philosophy (2008); M. Ronzoni, “The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice?”, Philosophy and

Public Affairs (2009); Beitz, Charles R., ‘Justice and International Relations’, Philosophy and Public Affairs,

4 (4) (1975). Caney, Simon, ‘Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities’, Metaphilosophy,

32 (1/2) (2001). Miller, David, National Responsibility and Global Justice (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2007). Pogge, Thomas W., Realizing Rawls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989). Tan, Kok-Chor, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and

Patriotism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Valentini, Laura, Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2011), ch. 3. Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). Pogge, Thomas W., ‘Critical Study: Rawls on International Justice’, The Philosophical

Quarterly, 51 (203) (2001). Sangiovanni, Andrea, ‘Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State’, Philosophy and

Public Affairs, 35 (1) (2007). Blake, Michael, ‘Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy’, Philosophy and

Public Affairs, 30 (3) (2001). Nagel, Thomas, ‘The Problem of Global Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33 (2)

(2005).

Week 2: 3 October: Global Democracy and LegitimacyIn an increasingly globalized world, exercises of power which extend beyond the domestic context need to be tamed and regulated. Some scholars believe that their regulation should occur via global democratic procedures. Is the case for global democracy tenable? Or is the value of democracy dependent upon the existence of particular circumstances which are only instantiated at the domestic level? Alternatively, in the absence of full democracy, is there a way of securing the legitimacy of international institutions? What should count as “legitimacy” and “accountability” at the global level?

6

Required readings: Goodin, Robert, ‘Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives’, Philosophy

and Public Affairs, 35 (1) (2007). David Miller, ‘Democracy’s Domain’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 37 (2009), pp. 201-

228. A. Buchanan and R. Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions,”,

Ethics and International Affairs (2006);

Further reading: D. Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens (PUP 2008), Chapters 4 and 5. J. Bohman, “From Dêmos to Dêmoi: Democracy Across Borders,” Ratio Juris (2005); D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan

Governance (Blackwell 1995), Part Four; D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-Archibugi, R. Marchetti, Global Democracy: Normative and

Empirical Perspectives (CUP 2011), chapters 3, 4, 9 (by Christiano, MacDonald, and Koenig-Archibugi);

Macdonald, Terry, Global Stakeholder Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Whelan, Frederick, ‘Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem’ in J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (eds), Liberal Democracy (New York: New York University Press, 1983).

Held, David, ‘Democracy and the International System’, in D. Held & D. Archibugi, Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1995).

Goodin, Robert E., ‘Global Democracy: In the Beginning’, International Theory, 2 (2) (2010), 175-209.

McGrew, Anthony, ‘Democracy Beyond Borders? Globalization and the Reconstruction of Democratic Theory and Politics’, in A. McGrew (ed.), The Transformation of Democracy? Globalisation and Territorial Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1997).

Dahl, Robert, ‘Can International Organisations be Democratic? A Sceptic’s View’, in I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon (eds.), Democracy’s Edges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Week 3: 10 October: World TradeWe are all involved in global trade in some way or other. Many of the products we currently buy are produced far away, often under morally objectionable (e.g., exploitative) conditions. Moreover, multilateral trade organizations such as the WTO have routinely come under attack for adopting trade agreements that unfairly benefit developed countries to the disadvantage of developing ones. Are these accusations warranted? If so, what would a ‘fair trade’ regime demand? And what are our responsibilities towards its establishment?

Required readings: D. Moellendorf, Darrel, “The World Trade Organization and Egalitarian Justice,” Metaphilosophy (2005). Risse, Mathias, ‘Fairness in Trade I: Trading and the Pauper-Labor Argument’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6 (3) (2007).

7

James, Aaron, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), chapter 1 (Introduction).

Further readings: ‘International Trade: What does Justice Demand?’, Carnegie Council Forum. See

esp. the introduction, by Christian Barry. Available online at: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/5359.html

Kapstein, Ethan, ‘Distributing the Gains: Justice and International Trade’, Journal of International Affairs, 52 (2) (1999).

Kurjanska, Malgorzata and Risse, Mathias, ‘Fairness in Trade II: Export Subsidies and the Fair Trade Movement’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 7 (1) (2008).

Young, Iris Marion, ‘Responsibility and Global Labor Justice’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12 (4) (2004).

James, Aaron, ‘Distributive Justice without Sovereign Rule: The Case of Trade’, Social Theory and Practice, 31 (4) (2005).

James, Aaron, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), rest of the book.

Wollner Gabriel, and Risse, Mathias, ‘Critical notice of Aaron James’ Fairness in Practice’ (with Mathias Risse)The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2013, 43(3), 382-401.

Wollner Gabriel, and Risse, Mathias, ‘Three images of trade: On the place of trade in a theory of global justice’ (with Mathias Risse) Moral Philosophy and Politics, 2014, Vol. 1 (2), 201-227.

Special Issue of Moral Philosophy and Politics on Fair Trade: Vol. 1(2), 2014, all papers.

Stiglitz, Joseph and Charlton, Andrew, Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Walton, Andrew, ‘What is Fair Trade?’, Third World Quarterly, 31 (3) (2010). Barry, Christian and Reddy, Sanjay, International Trade and Labor Standards: A

Proposal For Linkage (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).

Week 4: 17 October: Tax Havens and Tax CompetitionTax havens, fully legal practices of tax avoidance performed by large multinational corporations, and so called “harmful tax competition” more generally are increasingly pointed at as insurmountable obstacles to the capacity of states to collect taxes under conditions of global interdependence.Is Globalization affecting the capacity of states to collect taxes and redistribute resources? And if so, how should the problem be addressed? Should we have taxes collected at the global level? Should tax havens be sanctioned? Are there promising ways of tackling harmful tax competition other than replacing national fiscal systems with global taxation?

Required readings: P. Dietsch, “Rethinking Sovereignty in International Fiscal Policy,” Review of

International Studies (2011); P. Dietsch and T. Rixen, “Tax Competition and Global Background Justice,” Journal

of Political Philosophy, 2014, pp. 150–177; Miriam Ronzoni, “Global Tax Governance: The Bullets Internationalists Must Bite –

And Those They Must Not,” Moral Philosophy and Politics, Vol 1 (1), 2014.

Further Reading:

8

Tax us if you can, report of the Tax Justice Network, available at http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/tuiyc_-_eng_-_web_file.pdf;

R. S. Avi-Yonah, “Globalization, Tax Competition, and the Fiscal Crisis of the Welfare State,” Harvard Law Review (2000);

P. Dietsch, “Tax Competition and its Effects on Domestic and Global Justice,” in Banai, Ronzoni, Schemmel, Social Justice, Global Dynamics (Routledge 2011);

T. Pogge, “Allowing the Poor to Share the Earth,” Journal of Moral Philosophy (2011);

P. Dietsch, Catching Capital – The Ethics of Tax Competition, Oxford University Press, 2015;

Moral Philosophy and Politics, special issue on Global Tax Justice, Vol 1 (1), 2014; Special Issue of the Journal of Moral Philosophy on Global Tax Justice, issue 3, 2011

(articles by Steiner, Casal, Pogge);

Week 5: 24 October: Labour in a Globalized WorldIt is often argued that globalization is widening the gap in bargaining power between labour and capital: Is this true? And how, if at all, can the problem be addressed? What are our responsibilities for poor labour standards in foreign countries? Is globalization leading to a race to the bottom in labour standards in poor as well as wealthy countries?

Required readings: Iris Marion Young, “Responsibility and Global Labour Justice,” Journal of Political

Philosophy (2004); C. Barry and S. Reddy, International Trade and Labor Standards: A Proposal for

Linkage (Columbia UP: 2008), chapters 1 2, 3 and 7 (very short chapters); Miriam Ronzoni, “Global Labour Injustice: A Critical Overview,” in Hanna Lerner,

Yossi Dahan, Faina Milman-Sivan (eds.) Global Justice and International Labour Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Further readings: Y. Dahan, H. Lerner, F. Milman-Sivan, “Global Justice, Labor Standards and

Responsibility,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law (2011); Kate MacDonald, “Social Justice beyond Bounded Societies: Unravelling Statism

within Global Supply Chains? in Banai, Ronzoni, Schemmel, Social Justice, Global Dynamics (Routledge 2011);

C. Barry and S. Reddy, International Trade and Labor Standards: A Proposal for Linkage (Columbia UP: 2008), remaining chapters;

Hanna Lerner, Yossi Dahan, Faina Milman-Sivan (eds.) Global Justice and International Labour Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

M. Ronzoni “Making Access to Trade Conditional on Labour Standards?” Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric (2009);

Bercusson, B. and Estlund, C., ‘Regulating Labour in the Wake of Globalisation: New Challenges, New Institutions,’ in Bercusson, B. and Estlund, C. (eds.), Regulating Labour in the Wake of Globalisation (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008).

Bronfenner, Kate (ed.), Global Unions Challenging Transnational Capital through Cross-Border Campaigns (Ithaca: Cornell university Press 2007).

Dahan, Y., Lerner, H., and Milman-Sivan, F., ‘Shared Responsibility and the International Labour Organization,’ Michigan Journal of International Law 34 (2013), 675-743.

9

Dahan, Y., Lerner, H., and Milman-Sivan, F. (eds.) Global Justice and International Labour Rights, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2016.

Davies, R. B. and Chaitanya Vadlamannati, K., ‘A Race to the Bottom in Labour Standards? An Empirical Investigation,’ Working Papers, School Of Economics, University College Dublin (2011), available at http://www6.bwl.uni-kiel.de/phd/downloads/schneider/ws1112/paper_davies.pdf.

READING WEEK: NO SEMINAR

Week 7: 7 November: Sovereignty and International LawThe world is currently organised around states that claim to be sovereign over their territory and those under their rule. This is underwritten by current public international law, whose prime addressees are states. But what is sovereignty? And does sovereign statehood hinder or make possible the pursuit of justice? Has globalisation, and the rise of international institutions, rendered the concept of sovereignty obsolete?

Required readings:1. A. Buchanan, ‘Recognitional Legitimacy and the State System’, Philosophy & Public

Affairs, 1999. 2. T. Endicott, ‘The Logic of Freedom and Power’, in S. Besson & J. Tasioulas (eds.),

The Philosophy of International Law (OUP, 2010). 3. H. Shue, ‘Limiting Sovereignty’, in J. Welsh (ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and

International Relations (Oxford: 2004), reprinted in H. Shue, Fighting Hurt: Rule and Exception in Torture and War (OUP, 2016).

Further Readings: Kofi Annan, ‘Towards a new definition of sovereignty’, in G.M. Eichenberg, H. Syse &

E. Begby (eds.), The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Blackwell, 2006). Originally published in The Economist (1999), http://www.economist.com/node/324795.

A. Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect: a defense (OUP, 2014). M. Blake, Justice and Foreign Policy (OUP, 2013). A. Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy and Self-determination (OUP, 2004). D. Grimm, Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political Concept (Columbia,

2015). R. Jackson, Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea (Polity, 2007). J.T. Johnson, Sovereignty: Moral and Historical Perspectives (Georgetown, 2014). J. Rawls, Law of Peoples (Harvard, 1999). H. Shue, ‘Let whatever is smouldering erupt? Conditional Sovereignty, Reviewable

Intervention, and Rwanda 1994’, in H. Shue, Fighting Hurt: Rule and Exception in Torture and War (Oxford: 2016).

Week 8: 14 November: Armed Conflict and AggressionIt is often argued that threats to the sovereignty of a state warrant an armed response. According to the UN Charter regime, sovereign states have an ‘inalienable’ right to self-defence against aggression (Article 51). How come states can claim such a right? Does the concept of self-defence against aggression presuppose a distinction between compatriots and outsiders, or is it compatible with moral cosmopolitanism? Are there normatively desirable alternatives to state-centric accounts of self-defence? Would such alternatives reduce the likelihood of illegitimate uses of armed force?

10

Required Readings: 1. C. Fabre, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Wars of Self-defence’, in C. Fabre & S. Lazar (eds),

The Morality of Defensive War (OUP, 2014). 2. D. Rodin, ‘War, Responsibility, and Law Enforcement’, in Rodin, War and Self-

Defense (OUP, 2002). 3. M. Walzer, ‘Law and Order in International Society’, in M. Walzer, Just and Unjust

Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1977/20155).

Further Readings: C.A.J. Coady, Morality and Political Violence (CUP, 2007). Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self-Defense (CUP, 20054). G. Doppelt, ‘Walzer’s theory of morality in international relations’, Philosophy &

Public Affairs, 1978. G. Doppelt, ‘Statism without foundations’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1980. C. Fabre, ‘Collective Self-Defence’, in Fabre, Cosmopolitan War (OUP, 2012). S. Lazar, ‘National Defence, Self-Defence, and the Problem of Political Aggression’,

in C. Fabre & S. Lazar (eds), The Morality of Defensive War (OUP, 2014). D. Luban, ‘Just War and Human Rights’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1980. D. Luban, ‘The Romance of the Nation State’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1980. L. May, ‘Defining state aggression’, in May, Aggression and Crimes against the

Peace (CUP, 2008). D. Rodin, ‘The myth of national self-defence’, C. Fabre & S. Lazar (eds), The Morality

of Defensive War (OUP, 2014). M. Walzer, ‘The Moral Standing of States: a reply to my critics’, Philosophy & Public

Affairs, 1980. M. Walzer, Arguing about War (Yale, 2004).

Week 9: November 21: Drones and CounterterrorismDesigned in the aftermath of World War II, the UN Charter takes self-defence against aggression perpetrated by another state as the paradigm case for the legitimate use of force in international society. That said, since 9/11, states have increasingly used force against non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, remnants of the Taliban, and ISIL. New combat technologies, such as remotely-piloted aircraft (‘drones’), have amplified this trend, enabling the remote targeting of individuals suspected of terrorist activity over long distances. But who is a terrorist in the first place? And can targeted killings, and similar counterterrorist measures abroad (the extensive deployment of special forces, for instance), be easily accommodated by the existing laws of war? What role, if any can institutions play in regulating the use of emerging combat technologies in counterterrorist campaigns?

Required Readings: 1. A Buchanan & R. Keohane, ‘Toward a Drone Accountability Regime’, Ethics &

International Affairs, 2015. 2. N.C. Crawford, ‘Accountability for Targeted Drone Strikes against Terrorists?’, Ethics

& International Affairs, 2015.3. J. McMahan, ‘Targeted Killing: Murder, Combat or Law Enforcement?’, in C.

Finkelstein, D. Ohlin & A. Altman, Targeted Killings (CUP, 2012).

Further Readings: N.C. Crawford, Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for Collateral Damage

in America’s Post 9/11 Wars (Oxford, 2013). C.A.J. Coady, Morality and Political Violence (CUP, 2007). C. Finkelstein, D. Ohlin & A. Altman, Targeted Killings (CUP, 2012).

11

A.N. Guiora, Legitimate Target: A criteria-based approach to targeted killing (Oxford, 2013).

H. Gusterson, Drone: Remote-Controlled Warfare (MIT, 2016). J. Kaag & S. Kreps, Drone Warfare (Polity, 2015). S. Kreps, Drones: What everyone needs to know (OUP, 2016). C. Kutz, ‘Drones, Democracy and the Future War’, in C. Kutz, On War and

Democracy (Princeton, 2015). S. Miller, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Ethics and Liberal Democracy (Wiley,

2008). B.J. Strawser (ed.), Killing by Remote Control (OUP, 2012). B.J. Strawser, ‘Moral Predators’, Journal of Military Ethics, 2010. D. Whetham, ‘Targeted Killing: Accountability and Oversight via a Drone

Accountability Regime’, Ethics & International Affairs, 2015. C. Woods, Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars (Hurst, 2015).

Week 10: 28 November: Climate Change and Environmental JusticeProtecting the environment is a key political challenge. Environmental collapse is arguably a bigger threat to human civilisation than terrorism. Combatting climate change is a political aim that cannot be confined to a single state. The climate does not stop at state borders. Does sovereignty stand in the way of combatting climate change? And how should the burdens arising from climate change be distributed? Do efforts to protect the climate require a cosmopolitan outlook or are they compatible with non-cosmopolitan principles?

Required Readings: 1. S.M. Gardiner, ‘Ethics and Global Climate Change’, Ethics, 2004. 2. H. Shue, ‘Eroding Sovereignty: the advance of principle’, in H. Shue (ed.), Climate

Justice: Vulnerability and Protection (OUP, 2014).3. S. Caney, ‘Two Kinds of Climate Justice: Avoiding Harm and Sharing Burdens’,

Journal of Political Philosophy, 2014.

Additional Readings: D.G. Arnold (ed.), The Ethics of Global Climate Change (CUP, 2011). J. Broom, Climate Ethics: Ethics in a Warming World (Norton, 2012). S.M. Gardiner, A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical tragedy of Climate Change (OUP,

2011). R.E. Goodin, ‘Selling Environmental Indulgences’, in S. Gardiner, S. Caney, D.

Jamieson, H. Shue (eds.), Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (OUP, 2010). C. Hayward & Dominic Roser (eds.), Climate Justice in a non-ideal world (OUP,

2016). D. Moellendorf, The Moral Challenge of Dangerous Climate Change: Values,

Poverty, and Policy (CUP, 2014). S. Vanderhoven, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change (OUP,

2008).

Week 11: 5 December: MigrationMigration is a hotly debated issue. Some argue that, for a variety of reasons, it constitutes a threat to prosperity and cultural integrity of prospective host societies, while others point out that, in global terms, the number of individuals who migrate is far smaller than the number of those – the overwhelming majority of people, in fact - who remain within a particular territory over the course of their lives. Migration poses the central question to what extent, if any, states are justified in refusing entry to their territory to non-members. Does the right to refuse entry undermine the pursuit of justice? Are open borders, in a non-ideal world, a sound

12

strategy to address international equalities? And on what basis can one distinguish between refugees and migrants?

Required Readings:1. K. Oberman, ‘Immigration, Global Poverty and the Right to Stay’, Political Studies,

(2011).2. M. Lister, ‘Who are refugees?’, Law and Philosophy, 2011. 3. B. van der Vossen, ‘Immigration and self-determination’, Politics, Philosophy and

Economics, 2015. Further Readings:

S. Benhabib, The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (CUP, 2004). G. Brock & M. Blake, Debating Brain Drain (OUP, 2015). J. H. Carens, ‘The Case for Open Border’, in Carens, The Ethics of Immigration

(Oxford, 2013). C. Kukathas, ‘Are refugees special?’, in S. Fine & L. Ypi (eds.) Migration in Political

Theory: The ethics of movement and membership (OUP, 2016). D. Miller, ‘Closed Borders’, in D. Miller, Strangers in our Midst: The Political

Philosophy of Immigration (Harvard, 2016). R. Pevnik, Immigration and the constraints of justice (CUP, 2014). M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Basic Books, 1982). C. H. Williams & P. Cole, Debating the Ethics of Migration: Is there a right to

exclude? (OUP, 2011).

13