Ethics and War in The Twenty

This article was downloaded by: [King's College London.
]
On: 16 June 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919092085]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Intelligence and National Security
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713672628
Ethics and War in the Twenty-First Century: International Society at a

'Fork in the Road'
Cian O'Driscoll
Online publication date: 10 March 2010
To cite this Article O'Driscoll, Cian(2010) 'Ethics and War in the Twenty-First Century: International Society at a 'Fork in
the Road'', Intelligence and National Security, 25: 1, 86 97

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02684521003588161
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02684521003588161
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Vol. 25, No. 1, 8697, February 2010
Downloaded By: [King's College London.] At: 19:36 16 June 2011
REVIEW ARTICLE
Ethics and War in the Twenty-First

Century: International Society at a
Fork in the Road
CIAN ODRISCOLL
Henrik Syse and Gregory M. Reichberg (eds.), Ethics, Nationalism, and Just
War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives (Washington, DC: Catholic
University Press of America, 2007). Pp. 405, biblio., index. 26.50. ISBN
978-0-8132-1502-0.
David B. MacDonald, Robert G. Patman and Betty Mason-Parker (eds.),
The Ethics of Foreign Policy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Pp.249, biblio.,
index. 55.00. ISBN 978-07546-4377-7.
Michael L. Gross, Bioethics and Armed Conflict: Moral Dilemmas of
Medicine and War (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006). Pp.384, biblio.,
index. 16.95 Pb. ISBN 0-262-07269-6; 41.95 Hb. ISBN 0-262-57226-5.
The discipline of International Relations has a patchy record when it comes
to accounting for change in world politics. It has tended to focus on
continuity instead. A typical statement in this regard is Martin Wights
depiction of international affairs as a realm of recurrence and repetition,
while Hans Morgenthau has drawn attention to its repetitive character.1
On a more general level, the dominant realist/neorealist orthodoxy has
presented statecraft as a timeless and invariant practice, unchanged since the
time of Thucydides. Against this backdrop, the events of 9/11 delivered a
1
Martin Wight, Why is There No International Theory? in James Der Derian (ed.)
International Theory: Critical Investigations (London: Macmillan 1995) p.25. Hans J.
Morgenthau, The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory in James Der Derian (ed.)
International Theory: Critical Investigations (London: Macmillan 1995) p.39.
ISSN 0268-4527 Print/ISSN 1743-9019 Online/10/010086-12 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02684521003588161
Ethics and War in the Twenty-First Century
87
massive shock to the system, signalling change, disruption and even rupture.
As such, it called into question many of the articles of faith upon which
contemporary international relations rests, challenging conventional wisdoms and moralities.2 Tony Blair captured something of this sense of crisis
when he remarked in October 2001 that 9/11 shattered global order and
presented international society with a moment of instability that the agents
of justice must seize upon in order to reconstruct the world along more
progressive lines.3 This, he declared, is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope
has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before
they do, let us re-order this world around us.4
Blairs conviction that 9/11 marked a moment of change in international
politics is widely shared. Jean Bethke Elshtain famously compared the events
of 9/11 to the sack of Rome in 410 AD, while Fred Halliday declared it a day
that shook the world.5 According to this perspective, 9/11 revealed the
emergence of new threats to international peace and security namely, those
located at the nexus between terrorism, weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) and rogue states. These threats call into question the present
constitution of international society, and in particular its security
architecture. Put simply, it is alleged that the spectre of shadowy networks
of individuals organized to bring great chaos and suffering to our shores at
any cost and by any means circumvent existing security mechanisms like
deterrence and reactive national self-defence.6 As the Bush administrations
National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2002 puts it, new threats have emerged
that challenge old rules and require new thinking.7
This had lead to what Kofi Annan has described as a fork in the road
facing international society.8 Do we abandon the established security regime
and invent it anew, in order to better manage these new threats, or should
we try instead to continuing working within the old rules, merely adapting
Andrew Hurrell, There are no Rules (George Bush): International Order after September
the 11th, International Relations 16/2 (2002) pp.185204. Also, Ian Clark, Legitimacy in
International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005) pp.2248.
3
For more on the idea of crisis, see Stuart Croft, Culture, Crisis and Americas War on Terror
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006).
4
Prime Minister Tony Blair, Address to the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 2 October
2001, 5http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/03/uk.afghanistan4 (18 February
2008).
5
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror: the Burden of American Power in a Violent
World (New York: Basic Books 2004) p.151; Fred Halliday Two Hours that Shook the
World: September 11, 2001, Causes and Consequences (London: Saqi Books 2002).
6
George W. Bush, National Security Strategy of the United States, The White House, 17
September 2002, 5http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/print/nssall.html4 (18 January 2010).
7
Ibid.
8
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, The Secretary-General Address to the General
Assembly,
23
September
2003,
5http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/58/statements/
sg2eng030923.htm4 (18 January 2010). Cited in Jef Huysmans, International Politics of
Insecurity: Normativity, Inwardness and the Exception, Security Dialogue 37/1 (2006) p.13.
88
and extending them to meet current circumstances? As Annan points out,

this is a matter of the utmost importance:
This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the UN
was founded . . . Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue
on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed. And
we must not shy away from questions about the adequacy, and
effectiveness, of the rules and instruments at our disposal.9
In response to the gauntlet thrown down by Annan, it is tempting to argue
that what is required is a wholesale overhaul of the international security
regime. To return to the slogan offered by the NSS, new threats require new
thinking. Yet there are those who argue that this would be a rash and even
foolhardy move. These thinkers, displaying a strand of Burkean conservatism, contend that any programme that actively eschews the wisdom of the
ages embodied in established norms and practices is to be entered into
cautiously. Accordingly, we should be wary of any line of thought that
would disown the received past, and divorce us from its inheritance. Such a
move is likely to undercut the foundations of society, cutting communities
adrift from their own history and leaving them to flounder unaided in a
present marked by turmoil and instability. From this perspective, then, it is
important that people remain true to the inheritance we receive in the form
of established norms and practices. Such an approach, Burke himself argues,
is the key to stability and indeed future progress; without it we could not
possibly hope to surpass or even equal the achievements of the past. People,
he writes, will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to
their ancestors.10 This Burkean tendency to look to established practice as
the best tutor for political life is present to varying degrees in three recently
published books on the normative challenges posed by the war on terror.
Force and Justice
The first of these books, and the most Burkean in tone, is the excellent
Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Henrik Syse and Gregory M. Reichberg, both of the
International Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO). The purpose of this
volume is to explore the utility of the just war tradition as a resource for
engaging the many pressing normative issues thrown up by the war on
terror. To this end, the book is divided into two sections, the first of which is
dedicated to the examination of medieval formulations of the just war, while
the second extends these formulations to the war on terror. The underlying
assumption here is that, despite the purportedly novel character of the war
9
Ibid.
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain
Societies in London Relative to that Event, edited by Conor Cruise OBrien (Baltimore, MD:
Penguin 1969) pp.1923.
10
89
on terror, the just war tradition still provides a useful intellectual and
practical resource through which to interrogate questions of force and justice
in international society.
Indeed, this is the core point advanced by James Turner Johnsons
prefatory essay for section one of this book, Thinking Morally about War
in the Middle Ages and Today. As one would expect of Johnson, his
argument in support of this view draws upon his own canon of work and
is suitably nuanced.11 He contends that although the medieval just war
tradition does not provide a straight-forward template for the modern
theorist of war, because the world it presupposes is now a thing of the
past, there is still value in returning to it. The objective of such a return is,
for Johnson, to partake in reflective encounter with history, where the
ultimate aim of such an encounter is to shed light on the practices of the
present (p.4). This, we must be clear, is not an incitement to abstract,
ahistorical generalizing. Rather, it is a call to explore the points of
convergence and divergence evident in historical and contemporary
articulations of the role and right of war in international society. To this
end, Johnson encourages scholars interested in the relationship between
force and justice as it plays out in any age, including the present time, to
enter into a stream of reflection, debate, and dialogue with the historical
development of the just war tradition (p.9). It is, he contends, only by
exploring the historical origin and usage of the principles and values of the
just war tradition that one can properly ascertain whether and how they
might be applied to the contemporary world.
Johnsons modus operandi is adopted by most of the scholars
contributing to this volume. It is probably not unfair to say, then, that
the success of this book is dependent upon the strength of this approach.
Happily for all concerned, the venture is very successful indeed. Following
Johnsons remarks, the first section contains a number of fascinating
entries. Of particular note here is John von Heykings piece on the
distinction between classical and early modern approaches to the limitation
and restraint of war. It contains a fascinating account of the relation
between virtue, glory, salvation, and just war, as these concepts figured in
both Ciceronian and early Christian formulations of the right to war.
Perhaps, however, the author is guilty of (imperial) overstretch when he
asserts, by way of conclusion, that Ambrosian thought might provide some
pointers with respect to how the love of apocalyptic glory, as in the case
of Al Qaeda, can be moderated and, more important, can be moderated on
its own terms (p.54). Also of great merit is Reichbergs chapter on
Thomas Aquinas, and whether or not a presumption against war occupies
the core of his just war thought. This is an issue not merely of antiquarian
11
Some of Johnsons key works include: James Turner Johnson, Ideology, Reason and the
Limitation of War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1975); Just War Tradition and
the Restraint of War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1985); Can Modern War be
Just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1984); Morality and Contemporary Warfare
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1999).
90
or exegetical interest; it speaks to the contemporary debate regarding the

problematization of war within the just war tradition by exploring its
origins in divergent interpretations of Aquinas writings on war. Among
other things, it reveals the manner by which the past may be deployed as
authority in the service of contemporary political argument, and the very
real implications this can have in terms of framing policy debates.12
In addition to these chapters by von Heyking and Reichberg, there are
interesting pieces by Philip Gray, Henrik Syse, and Kate Forhan. These
essays range over a wide-ranging and far from orthodox territory,
covering aspects of Augustinian theology, virtue ethics and the literary
contribution of Geoffrey Chaucer and Christine de Pizan to the just war
tradition.
As mentioned earlier, the second section of this volume shifts direction to
examine whether or not the just war tradition allows us to achieve critical
purchase on many of the threats and challenges particular to the
contemporary security environment. It includes chapters by Reichberg and
Syse, Anne Julie Semb, Dan Smith and Dieter Hansen on (respectively) the
protection of the environment in times of war, the danger of non-UNauthorized humanitarian intervention, the rise of violent nationalisms and
the controversial issues of anticipatory defence and regime change. These
issues, all very contemporary, are well-handled; an achievement which
attests to the continuing utility of the just war tradition as a site of critical
analysis. Crucial here, however, is the fact that these various entries do not
simply apply some received just war framework or checklist to their subjectmatter. Instead, they adopt a questioning stance with respect to the historical
tradition, seeking to revise, renew, and ultimately extend it to tackle the
issues at hand. In this respect, the principles and values of the just war
tradition, historically understood, are treated, not as the resolution of moral
argument, but as its point of departure or, put differently, as an invitation
to further argument.
In approaching the just war tradition in this manner, the authors and
editors of this volume have recovered something of that traditions diversity
and vitality. All too often, the tradition is treated as a static and timeless
typology that can be applied in a technical manner to questions of war and
peace. When this occurs, something is lost namely the traditions pluralistic
qualities and capacity to evolve and develop over time in response to
changing circumstances. Consequently, the tradition slides into traditionalism, becoming a dogmatic assertion of historically-sourced but now-frozen
rules and categories.13 In contrast, by emphasizing the protean nature and
12
For more on the idea of using the past as an authority citation, see: Cian ODriscoll, The
Renegotiation of the Just War Tradition and the Right to War in the 21st Century (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan 2008). Also see Richard Tuck, Why is Authority Such a Problem?
in Peter Laslett, W.G. Runciman and Quentin Skinner (eds.) Philosophy, Politics, and Society
(London: Blackwell 1972) pp.194207.
13
For more on the distinction between traditions and traditionalism, see: Jaroslav Pelikan,
The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1984) p.65.
91
open-endedness of the tradition, the essays gathered in this volume re-affirm

the Burkean idea that traditions should function, not to reify the past, but as
a mode of interrogating any potential link between the past, present and
possible futures. In this respect, this volume is most successful. Indeed, I
would go so far as to say that this is as good a collection of essays on the
contemporary just war tradition as one is likely to find. It stands alongside
Johnsons work and Reichberg and Syses anthology (The Ethics of War:
Classic and Contemporary Readings) as essential reading for those of us
interested in the just war tradition, and particularly in how its historical
articulations might be related to contemporary issues of force and justice. It
will be very helpful to researchers in the field, but also offers a useful
teaching resource.
Ethics and Foreign Policy
Questions of force and justice are also broached in The Ethics of Foreign
Policy, a collection of essays edited by David MacDonald, Robert Patman
and Betty Mason-Parker, all of the University of Otago, New Zealand. This
book comprises a collection of thoughtful articles on issues of force and
justice, as they stand in relation to foreign policy. Given that there has only
been a 29-year period in recorded human history during which warfare has
been absent, this emphasis makes eminent sense (p.2).
What of the relationship between force, justice and foreign policy then?
According to the editors, it has an established history that can be traced
through various historical epochs, but is currently in a period of flux. The
source of this flux is, of course, 9/11 and the changing security environment
it produced. The purpose of this volume, then, is to reconsider the
relationship we draw between force, justice and foreign policy in order to
account for the events of 9/11, and the transformative effect it has had upon
contemporary statecraft. Once again, the framing device employed by the
NSS recurs: new realities have emerged that challenge old norms and require
new thinking. However, where Kofi Annan identified a temptation to rip up
the rulebook and start all over again, the articles gathered here instead
display an inclination to revise existing resources in order to adapt them to
the new times.
The essays contributed by Barry Cooper and Nicholas Wheeler and
Rachel Owen both stand out in this respect. Wheeler and Owens essay
examines the tension between liberal interventionism and international law,
as it arose in relation to Blairs wars against Kosovo and Iraq. The interest of
these cases is that they represent moments in international society where
friction is clearly evident between the demands of ethical foreign policy,
international security and the rule of law. Wheeler and Owen expose these
tensions expertly, while treating the reader to a first-rate diplomatic history
of the Blair years. For the purposes of this review, what is especially
interesting about this piece is its treatment of the UN Charters provisions
for the maintenance of international peace and security. Wheeler and Owen
display a keen awareness that these provisions are not always adequate to
92
the task set for them; for instance, they make no allowance for intervention
in cases of genocide where there is a veto in the UN Security Council (p.97).
Yet Wheeler and Owen seem to come down against any effort to simply set
the Charter aside when it produces results that are distasteful to us: If
powerful states disregard Charter rules when these prove inconvenient . . .
then the overall effect would be to undermine the authority of the law
(p.97). This would be in the interest of no party. Accordingly, instead of
advocating this approach, Wheeler and Owen suggest that we might
emphasize the flexibility built into the Charter. In this manner, they deny the
rigidity of international law by stressing its mutability at the hands of those
who would invoke it in good faith. Parallel to Syse and Reichbergs
treatment of the just war tradition, then, Wheeler and Owen depict the UN
Charter, and indeed international law, as a protean field that possesses the
capacity to evolve with the times.
Barry Coopers Ethics and National Security in an Age of International
Terrorism returns our focus to the just war tradition. The aim of this essay
is to assess the ethical basis for responding to terrorism. With this in mind,
Cooper trawls through the idea of the just war as it was passed down from
Roman times to Spanish scholasticism in an effort to provide a different
framing for 9/11 than the dominant clash of civilizations narrative. Yet, the
notion of the just war is treated with caution. Cooper contends that the
notional just war has historically functioned to dress national security up in
transcendental claims, introducing an imperial element into international
politics as the experience of the US attests. This is an interesting thesis,
though it is not without its own flaws. Coopers treatment of scholastic
thought, and particularly his exegesis of Francisco de Vitorias writings, is
not entirely convincing, and the sweep of the argument is so broad that it
loses all sight of context.14 Richard Allen also takes up the question of
terrorism. However, he discusses it in relation to the threat posed by rogue
states. In contrast to Coopers critical stance, Allen is supportive of US
leadership in the war on terror. More specifically, he speaks of the necessity
of the Bush doctrine at a time when terrorism combines with proliferation
and rogue regimes. This essay serves well as a letter of support for the Bush
administration, but it does little more than this. Put bluntly, it is rather
unsatisfying.
More successful is B.K. Greener-Barchams piece on the contemporary
trend towards deploying domestic security agents (i.e. police) in external
jurisdictions. He argues that the deployment of police in peace support
operations in cases such as Kosovo and East Timor reflects the emergent
tendency of outside powers to undertake executive roles within the
14
Francisco de Vitoria (c.14801546) was a Jesuit philosopher and theologian of the

Salamanca School, who wrote extensively on the Spanish conquest of the Americas in relation
to the just war. For an introductory text, see Francisco de Vitoria, Vitoria: Political Writings,
edited by Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
1992).
93
jurisdiction of other states. This, he claims, has been an ad hoc development,

a pragmatic response to the phenomenon of failed states. As such, it has
taken place absent any framework for dealing with the security challenges
and moral dilemmas it gives rise to. In other words, there is no preconstituted rulebook to guide practice. Consequently, those participating in
such deployments have been forced to make it up as they go along. This,
then, represents a novel response to a novel problem, one that at first glance
has no ready-made reference point. However, Greener-Barcham concludes
by suggesting that we might acquire some handle on the issues raised by
external police deployments by viewing them as an invitation to reconsider
the relations of sovereignty in a given political community. This seems
exactly right to me, and opens up what promises to be a very interesting
avenue of research.
Elsewhere, a number of other interesting themes are explored. Dirk
Nabers assesses the success of Japanese and German foreign policy against
an ethical foreign policy template, while Jeremy Hall discusses the role of
the media in framing foreign policy in the context of the war on terror.
K.J. Keith and Susan Lamb discuss the prospects for both international law
and the pursuit of international criminal justice in the face of an extended
global conflict, while Andrew Stoeckel and Alfredo Rehren respectively
examine the ethical challenges of trade policy and political corruption in a
globalized political economy. Keiths essay is especially interesting. Focusing
on the International Law of Armed Conflict, it poses the question whether
new challenges, especially since the vile atrocities of 11 September 2001, call
for new laws? (p.210). In order to place some flesh on the bones of this
rather abstract formulation, Keith relates it to the right to force, the jus ad
bellum, in international law. He concludes by calling for persistence with the
given legal framework, claiming that it contains ample scope for revision
within its own constitution. The struggle against the challenges thrown up
by the war on terror is best conducted, he contends, not outside the law,
but within it (p.220).
The broad remit of this book is appealing, and suggests a welcome
attempt to broaden the focus beyond the permanent members of the UN
Security Council. It also commends this book as a teaching tool for those
who might wish to develop Foreign Policy Studies as a field that extends
beyond diplomatic history and the great powers. Overall, however, this
book does not supersede established texts in the field15 due to its rather hit
and miss character. While there are some undeniably innovative and
informative contributions, it is let down by one or two ill-judged entries.
Despite this, it does a fine job in orienting us to two aspects of foreign policy
that are often overlooked: first, the fact that it is a normative domain where
considerations of morality and power interact, and, second, that it is an
evolving field where change is a constant factor.
15
For example, Margot Light and Karen E. Smith (eds.) Ethics and Foreign Policy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001).
94
Medicine and War

Change has certainly been a constant factor in the fields of both bioethics
and military conflict. Michael Gross examines both of these fields, paying
attention to their mutual development and points of contact in his superb
study of bioethics in times of war. Bioethics and Armed Conflict: Moral
Dilemmas of Medicine and War is a comprehensive and provocative account
of the field of what we might loosely term military medical ethics. It would
be worth the price of admission for its sheer range alone, but it delivers so
much more than this. It is thoughtful, tightly argued, and theoretically rich.
It includes chapters on medical care for the wounded, patient rights for
soldiers, wartime triage, medical neutrality, chemical and biological warfare,
torture and ill-treatment and the pacifistic bent of medicine as a profession.
In each case, the issues in question are dealt with in a sophisticated but
accessible manner, leading the reader through complex material with both
assurance and authority. More importantly perhaps, Gross is scrupulous in
subjecting the accepted conventions governing each issue to penetrative
critique, such that we acquire a fresh perspective on what were previously
well-worn dilemmas. In all of this, Gross analysis is informed by his ability
to draw on a raft of different theoretical material, from Foucaults notion of
biopower, to Aquinas understanding of double effect, to contemporary
analytical theory.
At times this book reads as if Gross is determined to overturn every
commonplace in military medical ethics. His starting point, for example, is
the World Medical Associations (WMA) doctrine that medical ethics in
times of armed conflict is identical to medical ethics in times of peace (p.1).
This doctrine reflects the assumption that the physicians role is defined by a
transcendental obligation to his craft such that the doctorpatient relationship is shielded from the competing interests that sometimes threaten the
medical enterprise in any specific case. This is nonsense according to Gross.
It neglects the basic fact that the necessities of war transform the pressures
and dilemmas facing physicians on the battlefield.
As physicians try to save lives in an endeavour dedicated to taking
them, they confront hard dilemmas. It is the nature of these dilemmas
to question, if not recast, a physicians moral obligations . . . War
transforms, contracts, and subordinates the traditional doctor-patient
relationship, but rarely preserves it intact, as in peacetime. (p.12)
The implication here is that medicine is not above the fray; rather, it is
sometimes also in the trenches, compromised and challenged by the demands
of military necessity.
Developing his case Gross refers to seven controversial issues that
demonstrate just how, in times of war, military necessity puts severe
pressure on standard medical ethics. It is worth briefly discussing two of
these issues. The first is triage. The tragedy of triage, according to Gross, lies
in the ranking: how should authorities allocate scarce medical resources
95
among three groups those who will die regardless of care, those who will
live with only minimal care, and those who will die without care. The
standard peacetime norm is that medical need should dictate this ranking. In
times of war, however, this system must be disrupted by the rule of salvage,
the requirement to utilise medical resources in such a way as to return as
many soldiers to battle as possible (p.138). As a result, dilemmas arise as one
is forced to choose between saving the worst off, saving the most lives, and
saving those fit for duty.
The second issue is whether injured soldiers have a right to medical care.
In peacetime, the duty of the doctor to care for the patient is generally selfevident, derived from their relation to one another. Further, it is usually
unaffected by external conditions and actors. Military medicine, however,
introduces a number of rights, duties, and interests that challenge the
exclusivity of the doctorpatient relationship. Soldiers are, after all, not
ordinary patients; they have already been deprived of the right to life and
many of the civil liberties that anchor medical care. As Gross puts it, if a
soldier is sent to die, why is it necessary to care for him or her when
wounded? (p.66). Putting this difficulty aside, we are still left with the
thorny question of who possesses the authority to decide that a wounded
soldier should be offered medical care. On the battlefield, the provision of
medical care is never the sole preserve of doctors; military commanders
intrude upon the process. Physicians may determine their patients medical
needs, but military commanders decide when and how to serve them
consistent with military necessity and the prosecution of war (p.66).
Without entering into the details of Grosss response to these dilemmas, it
suffices to note that they demonstrate exactly how war tempers the quality
of medical ethics in specific cases. The doctrine of military necessity attaches
conditionality to medical practices undertaken on the battlefield, transforming the nature of the medical enterprise so that it hardly conforms to
peacetime norms. Gross has succeeded, then, for this reader at least, in
debunking the WMAs claim that medical ethics remain the same in war as
in peace. But does he offer more than a mere deconstruction of
commonplaces, or is this enough? In the first instance, he does offer more
than just a critical attitude. He actively seeks to formulate innovative
responses and solutions to the problems he uncovers in his analysis. Some
of these solutions are more convincing than others, but in each case the
authors singularity of purpose and his willingness to argue the case ought
to be commended. Moreover, these responses will both invite and
provoke further debate, rather than stunting it and this can only be a
good thing.
On a more general level, it seems to me that critical analysis of the kind
offered by Gross is exactly what we need at this point in time, as we confront
that fork in the road identified by Kofi Annan. Grosss analysis does not
mindlessly disregard the old rules and standard frameworks passed down
from previous generations, but rather questions them on their own terms
and assumptions. It is only with sustained reflection of this kind what
Johnson terms reflective encounter that we might begin to gauge whether
96
or not it is desirable or even possible to carry on with established rules and

norms, or whether radical changes are indeed needed.
Conclusion
Having surveyed these recent publications, we are in a position to offer some
(tentative) views regarding the fork in the road currently facing international
society, and which direction we should take. The first point to note is that
this divergence of the ways is overdrawn. It is not the case that international
society is restricted to either doggedly adhering to the old rules or starting
from scratch and inventing them entirely anew. There is of course a middle
way, and the books reviewed in this essay confirm both its viability and its
attractions. This middle way comprises reflective encounter with embedded
norms, with a view to adapting and revising them to fit contemporary
circumstances. It involves an interpretative mode of theoretical and political
engagement that looks to clarify, develop and renegotiate received norms
and practices in light of changing historical conditions. This, for instance, is
Reichberg and Syses objective with respect to the just war tradition, Keiths
ambition vis-a`-vis international law, and Grosss aim for military medical
ethics. The difficulty with such an approach lies in steering a path between
what I earlier referred to as traditionalism and anachronism. If traditionalism refers to the reification of a tradition, anachronism occurs when a
tradition is stretched beyond its own limits something that occurs, to put it
crudely, when too much new wine is poured into old bottles. Although these
difficulties are very real, the books reviewed here suggest that, where due
care is taken, they are avoidable.
This brings me to my second and final set of remarks, which return us to
the theme of change and continuity introduced at the outset. The
interpretative approach accredited to the literature reviewed here suggests
that we should not view that element of change introduced by the events of
9/11 in isolation from continuity in international affairs. Rather, we should
understand this change as circumscribed by continuity. This is certainly the
case when we consider the general response to 9/11. Although there were
clearly numerous attempts to overhaul the international security regime in
the wake of 9/11, these proposals were typically anchored in that same
regime. They relied, in other words, upon the prevailing discourse.16 Thus,
even the Bush administrations determination to promote a broader right to
anticipatory war, articulated in the NSS, is premised upon extant
international law.17 Equally, the new challenges facing international society
16
We might think here of Quentin Skinners statement that all revolutionaries are to this
extent obliged to march backwards into battle. Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics: Volume
1, Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002) p.150.
17
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before
they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent
danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of
preemption on the existence of an imminent threat most often a visible mobilization of
97
identified in the three books reviewed here can only appear novel when set
against the long sweep of relation to established norms and practices
respectively, in relation to the just war tradition, established foreign policy
norms and military medical ethics. These books succeed, then, in putting the
disruption signalled by 9/11 into perspective by addressing it from within,
and relating it to, established normative frameworks.18 The significance of
this simple move is not to be understated: by emphasizing continuity, they
have contributed to disenchanting 9/11 and the newness of the security
environment it gave rise to. This, of course, is only the first step towards
properly engaging and addressing the challenges posed by this security
environment, but it is a necessary one.
armies, navies and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent
threat to the capabilities and objectives of todays adversaries, Bush, National Security
Strategy of the United States.
18
Contrast this to the approach of, for example, Robert Kaplan. Kaplans basic thesis is that
present times call for a radical shift from modern political practices towards what he terms a
pagan ethos that favours warrior politics. In broad terms, it is an argument for turning away
from the established liberal framework of international society towards a more robust
engagement with the world. Robert D. Kaplan, Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a
Pagan Ethos (New York: Random House 2002).

Ethics and War in The Twenty

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ethics and War in The Twenty

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [King's College London.

Intelligence and National Security

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: