Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Gross, O. (2007). Torture and an ethics of responsibility. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 3(1), 35-54. 

May torture ever be morally or legally justified or excused? This article argues that an absolute legal ban on torture ought to be maintained. However, in truly catastrophic cases the appropriate method of tackling extremely grave national dangers and threats may call for going outside the legal order. The way to deal with the ‘‘extreme’’ or ‘‘catastrophic’’ case is neither by ignoring it nor by using it as the center-piece for establishing general, ex ante, policies. Rather, the focus is on the possibility that truly exceptional cases may give rise to official disobedience: Public officials may act extralegally and be ready to accept the legal ramifications of their actions.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What is the difference between absolutists and relativists in terms of the use of torture?
2. What is the new approach that the author proposes?
3. Based on this new approach that the author proposes, when would torture be appropriate?

***

Bellamy, A. J. (2005). Is the war on terror just? International Relations, 19(3), 275-296.

This article explores the question of whether the war on terror is just. It begins by arguing that the Just War tradition offers a better way of asking moral questions about war than either pacifism or realism. Applying the Just War tradition suggests that in order to justify a war on terrorism, we need to know exactly who the terrorists are and whether they have given us just cause for war. The war on terror as conceived by the Bush administration does not satisfy these tests because it threatens to wage war on those who have done no wrong and constitutes a disproportionate response. Whilst the war on terror may be unjust, war against specific terrorists may certainly be justifiable. The final part of the article explores some of the jus in bello elements of the war on terror and raises grave concerns about the way that the US and its allies are conducting the war.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What are the three perspectives on the ethics of war as applied to former President Bush’s declared war on terrorism after the September 11, 2001, attack on the U.S.?
2. What is the Just War tradition?
3. Does the war on terror as conceived by the Bush administration satisfy the “just war” tests?

***

Crelinsten, R. D. (2003).  The world of torture: A constructed reality. Theoretical Criminology, 7(3), 293-318.

This article argues that torture is made possible, despite almost universal condemnation in legal codes, by the construction of a closed world that permits the use of torture against specific members of society defined as enemies. The article examines how a torture-sustaining reality is constructed (causes), how it is maintained and institutionalized (consequences), how it can be dismantled or deconstructed (cures) and, ultimately, how it can be prevented from forming in the first place (prevention, early warning). For each phase, the article looks at those variables that are most pertinent for three types of actors: perpetrators, victims and bystanders. It also examines those variables that operate primarily at the domestic level and those that operate at the international level.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. How is a torture-sustaining reality constructed (causes)?
2. How is a torture-sustaining reality maintained and institutionalized (consequences)?
3. How can a torture-sustaining reality be dismantled or deconstructed (cures)?
4. How can a torture-sustaining reality be prevented from forming in the first place (prevention, early warning)?

***

Choi, S. W. & James, P. (2014). Why does the United States intervene abroad? Democracy, human rights violations, and terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1-28.

Democracy, human rights, and terrorism are major foreign policy issues. However, among these issues, what do the US leaders care about the most? This study assesses the degree to which Washington responds militarily to threats to democratic institutions, human rights abuses, and terrorist activity in other countries. Based on a cross-national, time-series data analysis of 164 countries for the years 1981 to 2005, this study presents empirical models that evaluate the relative importance of these issues for contemporary American foreign and security policy. It turns out that, all other things being equal, the United States is likely to engage in military campaigns for humanitarian reasons that focus on human rights protection rather than for its own security interests such as democracy promotion or terrorism reduction. This finding is extremely robust and reinforced by case illustrations that support a causal explanation for US intervention with a basic and sustained place for human rights protection.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What is the most significant perspective on why the United States intervenes militarily in other nation states?
2. Which of the author’s three hypotheses yielded the most statistically significant findings?