Georgetown University Ethical Issues in International ... 420: ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SYLLABUS SPRING SEMESTER 2010 ... persons who are neither family members nor

Georgetown UniversityEthical Issues in International Relations

Spring Semester 2010Professor Marilyn McMorrow, RSCJ

Jesuit Thinking about EducationIs Rooted in a Vision of God and the World

That insists on The Inseparable Conjunction

Of the Search for God With Service to Humankind.

From its Inception, Jesuit Education has Stood for aDistinctive Way of Pursuing Intellectual Achievement

That Combines Openness to the Transcendent With Down-to-Earth Practicality.

The University, in the Jesuit Vision, is a PlaceWhere Praise of God

Is Combined with Both Rigorous Critical QuestioningEssential to the Life of the Mind and

Commitment to Service.

Now More than Ever is this Vision Relevant to the Conditions Students Face.

For in practice it means: Taking Faith Seriously as a Dimension of Human Experience;

Cultivation of the whole person; Paying Attention to the

Moral Implications of Learning In such a way that Students are Equipped to Make Responsible

Choices And to See that More is at Stake in Their Studies

Than Just Self-Aggrandizement.

Jesuit Institutions Should Be Committed to a Faith that Promotes Justice,

Care of and Service to the Poor, andEducation of Men and Women Committed to the Service of Others.

Georgetown will Miss a Valuable Opportunity If it Fails to Engage Aggressively

Issues of moral and religious significance Across the Disciplines.

Centered Pluralism, pp. 23-25

GOVT 420: Ethical Issues in International Relations 2Syllabus Spring 2010, McMorrow

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITYGOVT 420: ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SYLLABUS SPRING SEMESTER 2010Professor Marilyn McMorrow, RSCJ

Classroom: ICC 101 Class Hours: M, W 08:50--10:05amOffice: ICC 520E Office Hours: M, W 2:30pm--4:00pmPhone: 7-5968 Email: [email protected]

THE FOCUS OF THE COURSE

In consequence of its Catholic and Jesuit heritage and purpose, Georgetown University is committed, through teaching, research, and professional preparation of students, to probe and develop the ethical dimensions and consequences of every field of human endeavor and scholarship.

The challenge is great. For to be a human being today requires coming to terms with phenomena like: genocide; ethnic cleansing; terrorist attacks on civilians; state–sponsored brutalization of poor and/or powerless populations; famine; refugee and migrant outflows, and environmental degradation. Moreover, we have armed—and continue to arm—ourselves, with weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying the human community and the planet, while also endlessly proliferating and circulate “small arms”—ranging from machetes to anti-personnel landmines—capable of wreaking widespread harm.

To respond to this challenge, and in keeping with Georgetown’s fundamental commitments, the purpose of "GOVT 420: Ethical Issues in International Relations" is to investigate two crucial ethical questions in world politics:

To what extent are states (and their leaders) obligated to act in accord with moral principles in their relations with other states?

In 2010, given the conjuncture of crises we face, what pressing ethical or moral obligations bind— or ought to bind states— within the international system?

We focus on the obligations of states because phenomena generated by the international system largely shape, enable, or deform conditions of life for every person on the planet.


A core assumption organizing the syllabus for this course is the claim that the international political and military economy is the basic social structure that largely determines each person's chances of living a life of dignity, in conditions of justice, well-being, freedom, and peace.

Consequently, our moral analysis requires calling into scrutiny the effects of the state system and of its linchpin institution: state sovereignty.

• What has to happen, at the state and interstate level, to ensure that the state system and sovereignty protect the basic rights and meet the basic needs of human beings?

• If moral obligations do bind states in their external and internal sovereignty:

What is the content of the obligations? The limits on these obligations? Are these obligations negative or positive in form?

• On what principles and by what set of priorities ought "we" (the society of states?) to assess--or limit--these obligations?

In a single semester, it is possible only to introduce the above topics, while providing students with an ethical framework within which to address them. The hope is that students will choose to develop further their analyses and knowledge in future studies.

The syllabus invites the students to examine issues like these within the secular literature of ethical and normative issues in International Relations—while also, on occasion, calling attention to religious reflections on these topics, including texts drawn from Catholic Social Justice Teaching.


THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURSE

N.B. For Spring 2010, Students and Prof decided to modify the syllabus to read two new texts. This changes the content of Unit IV substantively, while abbreviating texts covered in Units I-III.

After a preamble that sets the stage, the course addresses the ethical dimensions of international affairs through the following four units.

PreambleAt the best of times, states have competing interests. In the worst instances, states perpetrate horrible evils against their own populations and/or against persons beyond their borders. Non-state actors increasingly do the same.

Such is the context within which this course examines—and insists upon—a moral dimension to international relations. To ground our analysis, we begin with an account of genocidal massacre carried out under the gaze of United Nations Peacekeepers, reading Roméo Dallaire’s Shake Hands With the Devil. Anyone who wants to insist that states are bound by moral obligations and constraints—despite the structural conditions of an anarchic interstate system—must face squarely the obstacles and the tragic history that system generates, even when “international society” claims to support moral outcomes.

I. Ethical Perspectives About International Relations:In trying to assess what moral obligations ought to govern state behavior, we consider several schools of thought developed in response to that question. During the first theoretical unit of the course, we examine various ethical traditions in the literature of international relations. The goals are to assist students not only in deepening their knowledge of the field, but also in working out which tradition(s) articulate(s) their own intuition(s)/moral systems of thought. Specifically, we look at:• Ethical Realism or The Morality of States • The Natural Law Tradition• International Law Framework (not in Spring 2010)• The Declaratory Tradition• Liberal Theory of International Relations, with particular emphasis on Kantian

Liberal Theory.


II. An Ethical Framework Based on Universal and Basic Human RightsThe second unit introduces an ethical framework we subsequently employ throughout the rest of the course, as we analyze the moral obligations and constraints incumbent on state exercise of sovereignty. That framework is universal and basic human rights.

To that end, we study and build upon the central arguments Henry Shue proposes in Basic Rights:• All persons have certain universal, basic human rights;• Basic human rights give rise to correlative obligations;• States and the society of states are among the possible and likely duty-bearers of the

correlative obligations which basic rights engender;

The theory of basic rights and correlative obligations theory may help us identify and ground the moral principles that ought to govern relations between and among states.

Thus, in the final two units of the course, we apply the basic rights framework to moral questions that arise in response to the state's claims to free exercise of external and internal sovereignty.

III. External Sovereignty and International Moral Obligation:International Relations theory presumes a state is "sovereign" in its right to undertake whatever actions it deems necessary to protect or enhance security (external sovereignty). In Unit III of the course, we ask: What are there moral limits on this presumed autonomy?

Specifically, what are the moral limits on (or moral obligations requiring) resort to force, intervention, and use of weapons? Do states, singly or jointly as the society of states, have positive moral obligations to create peace where there is interstate conflict? Or to take preventive action to avert interstate conflict? If not, why not? If so, what is the content of this obligation, and what are its limits? In the third unit of the course, we look at questions like these in regard to the issues of:• Just War Theory and the Resort to Force (Interstate and Intervention)• Ethical Questions Related to the “War on Terror” [Not in Spring 2010]


IV. Internal Sovereignty and International Moral ObligationInternational Relations theory presumes a state is "sovereign" over its internal affairs, membership, and resources (internal sovereignty). Ordinarily, in Unit IV, the course considers moral limits on this autonomy. Specifically, what international obligations, if any, do states bear with regard to:• Poverty Alleviation• Refugee and Migrant populations• Environmental Degradation and Environmental Rescue

In Spring Semester 2010, students engage two texts hot off the presses: Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice, and Nicholas Kristof/ Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky. Sen seeks to contribute to ethical theory on social justice by calling for a comparative rather than idea theory of what justice requires. We jump into the scholarly debate by taking a recently published work that may or may not be considered someday part of the canon.

In addition to striving to understand and assess Sen’s argument on its own merit, we also seek to see whether international adoption Sen’s approach would be likely to counteract the harms and rights violations associated with massive discrimination against women, as detailed in Half The Sky.

GOAL OF THE COURSEThe goal of the course is to assist students in forming

a coherent normative perspectivefor addressing questions like the following:

• On what grounds, and according to what principles, is moral evaluation of state action possible?

• What is the moral standing of the principle of state sovereignty? What are ethical limits on this principle?

• What moral obligations, if any, do individuals have toward persons who are neither family members nor fellow citizens?

• What moral obligations, if any, do states have toward persons who are non-nationals and/or beyond their own borders?

• On what grounds may we argue that any one state, or the society of states, bears any particular moral obligation to any other state?

• Has each student found a particular ethical tradition that most makes sense to that student when analyzing world politics from a moral and/or ethical perspective?

If each enrolled student develops a clear, coherent, and ethically grounded approach

to addressing questions like these, then the course has met this goal.

COURSE MEMBERSHIP


An over-under course, enrollment generally includes undergraduates seeking to:• Major in the School of Foreign Service, (frequently IPOL Field A).• Major in Government in the College with a focus on International Relations.• Satisfy the Government Major requirement for a second Political Theory

course or an International Relations course. • Complete a minor or certificate in the Peace and Justice Program.• Broaden their background for academic work in other majors (e.g. Business,

Medicine, Theology, Philosophy).Some students in Master’s programs also enroll.

The ordinary perquisite is Introduction to International Relations—GOVT 006 or its equivalent.

COMMUNITY BASED LEARNING: FOURTH CREDIT OPTION Students who commit to regular service during the semester, working on an issue with some international dimension (e.g. refugee assistance, human rights advocacy, environmental preservation, "cultural survival," global poverty, etc.) may earn a fourth credit, through the Community Based Learning Program, administered by The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service, located in Poulton Hall. The description and application are found at this website: http://socialjustice.georgetown.edu/teaching/cblcstudents.html

RELIGIOUS HOLY DAYS AND HOLIDAYSStudents are encouraged to observe the major holy days and holidays of their religious traditions. Please notify the instructor about related absences. The instructor gladly accommodates.

COURSE REQUIREMENTSA. Reading Students are expected to:• Keep up with the reading, by dates assigned on the course calendar.• Read closely for analysis and for appropriate mastery of arguments and detail; • Come to class with the assigned texts on hand, marked and ready for reference.

B. AttendanceRegular attendance is expected and affects the final grade. Students are asked to:

• notify the professor when significant circumstances prevent their presence (and to be straightforward about the reasons);

• take prudent care of their health;• take advantage of the opportunities Georgetown offers, even when these conflict

with class.


C. ParticipationGiven class size Spring 2010, the class format is “seminar” and/or “lecture-discussion.” In terms of participation, students are expected to engage one another and the instructor and take turns, as assigned, in leading analysis of texts. Those who do not thrive on jumping into discussion contribute by asking clarifying questions or by moderating/ modifying the comments of those who do.

Quality participation means:• Referring specifically to the course texts; • Engaging, building on, or probing the viewpoints of other students;• Making connections among texts, course topics, and real world normative problems;• Pushing the analysis to a deeper level;• Raising questions of clarification.

Students are invited to offer suggestions or criticisms to the instructor, during office hours.

Students are expected to:• Use a GU issued email address in contacting the professor;• Manage email quota;• Remain cognizant of information on Blackboard;• Post on Blackboard Discussions if indicated.

D. ExaminationsMid-Term Examination: Wednesday, March 31, there is an in-class objective examination on Shue and Walzer. Response to a take-home essay question is also due. The two exercises combine to form the Mid-Term Examination.

The Group Oral Final Examination and Project has been scheduled, by the Registrar, for Tuesday May 11, 12:30pm-2:30pm. Any student with a conflict at this time will need to take the other exam during the Conflict Time Slot. This oral/final project is based on Sen and Kristof/WuDunn texts and may include submission of an essay—TBD. E. Papers

Response Paper: A maximum one-page response to Dallaire is due Wednesday January 27. State succinctly a chief concern, insight, question, skepticism. . . in response to Dallaire’s texts and subsequent UN Documents.

Essay On Ethical Framework: Monday, March 2, An essay (3-5 typed pages) that critiques or defends a particular ethical tradition in international relations. Paper is due in hard copy and electronic


version, saved as a Word Document, and posted under “Assignments” on Bb. and posts a polished essay on the Blackboard Discussion Board by Monday

Essay on Sen and Kristof/WuDunn: Some analysis of these texts forms part of the final examination. Content and format: TBD.

Here are the general requirements for an essay. 1. Each essay should make a specific argument substantiating that argument with reasons, and reference to appropriate texts in the field, and empirical evidence, as appropriate. Only well-argued, well-structured, and well-written/edited papers qualify for an A- or A grade.

2. Without prior agreement, late papers are subject to a grade penalty. The instructor grants extensions for serious illness, multiple academic deadlines, or comparable grave events—but reserves the right not to accept a very late paper.

3. Essays must conform to guidelines for standard composition, documentation, grammar, and manuscript format enunciated by Strunk and White, MLA. Any essay judged to have been produced without attention to, or in disregard of, these standards may be returned, without grade, for immediate revision and re-submission. A “late” penalty applies.

4. Submit hard copy of each paper and post an electronic version (saved as a Word doc) under “Assignments” on Bb.

5. The professor emphasizes composition skills essential to good expository writing:• Elimination of Undefended Assertions.• Consistent Use of the Active Voice.• Effective Use of Subordinate Clauses and Phrases.• Correct and Constant Use of Parallel Structure.• Elimination of Dangling Participles and Proper Placement of Modifiers.• Elimination of Unnecessary Words.• Choice of Strong Verbs.• Grammatically and syntactically sound inclusion of cited text. • Controlled Use of Adjectives and Adverbs.• Adoption of Varied Sentence Structure.• Proper Antecedents.• Ruthless Excision of Repetition.• Fluency in, and command of, a language style appropriate to scholarly writing.

6. Because papers should be written according to the dictates of Elements of Style and the MLA Handbook, the word to the wise is to adhere faithfully to these two guides. A student who does not already own and know these texts by heart is urged to buy and apply them. The professor assumes students take responsibility to learn and apply the rubrics of these two texts to their writing and plans to grade papers accordingly. If not now, then when?


7. Students are expected to recognize errors in their own work and revise accordingly. They may expect both the professor to critique written work, at the sentence—even the word choice—level. They assist one another’s intellectual development and academic success, by highlighting strengths and weaknesses in one another’s writing. This presumes that each works on learning to distinguish between criticism of one’s writing and personal criticism.

TEXTSThe following texts are required.Dallaire, Roméo, Shake Hands With The DevilKristof, Nicholas and Sheryl WuDunn, Half The SkyNardin Terry and David Mapel, eds., Traditions of International EthicsSen, Amartya, The Idea of JusticeShue, Henry, Basic Rights, revised editionWalzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars, Revised Edition

MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 5th edition (recommended)Strunk and White, Elements of Style, Revised Edition (recommended

Additional assigned readings are handed out in class, posted on Blackboard, or placed on on reserve in the library.

GRADINGAll elements of the course—attendance and participation, exams, essays, papers or projects—factor in the final grade. The essays and the mid-term examinations, however, have preponderant weight. Approximation: Response paper to Dallaire 5%First Essay: 25%Midterm (Combined) 30%Final Oral and Project 30%Attendance and Participation 15%

SUGGESTION FOR LEARNING INTEGRATIONWe cover many topics. And many topics we cover interconnect. It might be valuable for each one to pick one issue, by means of which to focus our ethical analysis. Perhaps a student might want to think about the implications of each ethical framework and issue in terms of how it affects women? Or children? Or soldiers? Or policy-makers? Or refugees and migrants? Or the environment?


ACADEMIC INTEGRITYStudents are expected to hold themselves and one another

to the highest standards of honesty and academic integrity: Dealing honestly and straightforwardly with the professor and fellow

students in all speech, interactions and writings.

Engaging directly, responsibly, and with concerted diligence and discipline, in serious and intellectual work, research, and writing—in this course and in general.

Acknowledging sources fully, according to MLA standards--including any materials garnered from the internet.

Respecting the research and arguments of scholars and colleagues and

treating those in context. Making sure writing submitted for GOVT 420 is not submitted

previously or subsequently in any other class—unless both professors agree to a special arrangement worked out ahead of time.

FOR THE RECORDCheating and misrepresentations of any kind in papers or examinations are absolutely forbidden. The instructor deals firmly with any instances that come to her attention and submits the offenders, for appropriate action, to the Honor Council.

However, students are encouraged to study together for examinations, to discuss the arguments of their papers with one another, and even to discuss together, ahead of time, proposed responses to answers on the take-home examinations. The instructor may invite students to prepare certain assignments, papers, projects, or examination questions together. In this class, brainstorming and developing arguments together in this way do not violate academic integrity.

Information found through the Internet must be attributed according to the same standards as information or source material drawn from written texts and/ or found by any other means. Unless the material in question forms part of "common knowledge," attribution is required.

Purchasing terms-papers by mail, downloading them from the internet, or using term-papers freely posted or provided, as the substance, as the basis, or even as a background contribution to written work submitted in class, is an egregious violation of academic integrity.

Submission of the same written work for more than one course, unless all professors involved have given approval ahead of time, violates academic integrity. Students who submit papers building on their previous work/learning so indicate in their documentation.

In the pursuit of the high ideals and rigorous standards of academic life, I commit myself torespect and uphold the Georgetown University Honor System: to be honest in any academic endeavor, and to conduct myself honorably, as a responsible member of the Georgetown community, as we live and work together.
