Cosmopolitan Justice and Criminal States

Cécile Fabre's monumental work Cosmopolitan Peace offers a thorough investigation of the responsibilities that agents incur through their involvement in armed conflict. However, her analysis fails to acknowledge the central role that states play in initiating and orchestrating acts of war. I argue that states are corporate moral agents, who are morally responsible for their own wrongdoings during an unjust war, and that this argument is compatible with Fabre's cosmopolitan premises. I then suggest that a systematic account of criminal liability in the aftermath of a war should acknowledge the role that states play in orchestrating wars and committing war crimes.     

Standing in the gap: ref lections on translating the Jung‐Neumann correspondence

This paper considers the experience of translating the correspondence between C.G. Jung and Erich Neumann as part of the Philemon series. The translator explores the similarities between analytical work and the task of translation by means of the concepts of the dialectical third and the interactional field. The history and politics of the translation of analytic writing and their consequences for the lingua franca of analysis are discussed. Key themes within the correspondence are outlined, including Jung and Neumann's pre‐war exploration of Judaism and the unconscious, the post‐war difficulties around the publication of Neumann's Depth Psychology and a New Ethic set against the early years of the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich, and the development of the correspondents’ relationship over time.     

Political Economy of Conflict and Conflict Resolution Between Islam,the Arab World,and the West

The problem studied in respect to politico-economic turmoil in an uneasy world centers around conflicts in the Arab world and between Islam and the West. In this respect, the Arab political economy is deeply embroiled in a quagmire of complex factors that have deepened and are confounded by Western political, strategic, and economic interests in the region. To study the topic of the politico-economic future of the Arab world is to delve into the study of complex factors. The present scenario of war, dissensions, power conflict, and Western belligerence with elitist self interest in the region is an example of a more permanent representation of the complexity of power, Western belligerence, regional interests, and religious conflicts. With respect to the political economy of conflict and conflict resolution concerning the West there is the uneasy alliance that has been unjustifiably established between the Arab world and the West. The conflict in this case rages around the spectre of political power and governance within which the cultural, religious, and economic forces tie in to generate the global political economic disorder. Conflict resolution in this arena requires an understanding based on acceptance of epistemological perspectives that wrap up the diverse oppositional factors into a discursive and consensual learning global social contract. This article studies this case of Arab political economy as a study of conflict and conflict resolution between contending forces and reconstructive politico-economic possibilities between the Arab world and the West and between Islam, the Arab world, and Occidentalism.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.     

Reasons for Conflict: Political Implications of a Definition of Terrorism

This essay analyzes the U.S. political situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ties this conflict to the events of 9/11. The guiding thread of the discussion is the definition of “terrorism” that has led to George W. Bush's declared “war on terrorism.” By means of Hegel's dialectic logic, the essay exposes the problem offered by the category of causality involved in the definition of terrorism: Is terrorism the original “cause” of the war declared on it by the United States (as the Bush administration claims) or is terrorism rather the very “consequence” of that war?     

When ideology matters: Moral conviction and the association between ideology and policy preferences in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Do people's policy preferences toward outgroups in intractable conflict consistently correspond with political ideology? To what extent are policy‐related cleavages between the political right and left in such contexts fueled by moral conviction and emotions? Analyses of a survey of Jewish‐Israelis (N = 119) conducted immediately after a war between Israelis and Palestinians revealed little to no ideological differences in acceptance of “collateral damage,” support for retribution, or support for compromise when positions about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict were devoid of moral fervor. Those on the left and right endorsed polarized policy preferences only when their positions about the conflict were held with moral conviction. Presence or absence of guilt about harm to Palestinians mediated the effects of moral conviction on policy preferences in this context. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Shadow and Spirituality

When we confront the meaning of spirituality in education confusion and conflict can arise as they arise from the confrontation with spirituality in ourselves. This occurs both at the personal and at the collective level, according to writers such as C.G. Jung. Failure to understand that human spirituality includes a shadow side of this kind is precisely what leads many forms of human spiritual expression, including organized religion, into deep splits and schisms. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the willing, but perhaps, nä L ve attempts of contemporary educationalists to understand spirituality within education in a wholly positive light have themselves run into trouble. This paper will attempt to argue that without balancing contemporary educational debate about spirituality against some writers', including C.G. Jung's, deepest insights into the place of shadow in spirituality, children will yet again be sold a misfaction [1] about the nature of that aspect of human being and becoming. This, in turn will merely deepen the chaos, confusion and conflict arising from the earnest and well-intentioned, but perhaps nä L ve, attempt to make spirituality part of the cross-curricular experience of all children in all common schools.[2]     

Just War: theory and application

ABSTRACT How should just war theory be applied to assess a community's claim to defend itself? The IRA's claim to be fighting a just war to end British rule in Northern Ireland is upheld against the objection (e.g. by Simpson in this Journal, 1986) that they have a right only to self-defence against indigenous tyranny. Under just war theory no unclarity concerning the alien status of British rule could render the IRA claim unjustifiable: only the well-grounded denial of its alien status might serve (though this is doubtful). But if that denial is argued for by identifying a separate British community in Ireland then the IRA must be granted a right to repel alien occupation of nationalist areas. However the IRA's rejection of the ‘two communities’ view can be defended; for what constitutes a single community is subject to moral considerations. Accordingly a genuine community's claim to self-defence is against being wronged, rather than harmed. It is concluded that just war theory cannot be applied without antecedent moral judgements identifying the community potentially wronged.     

When animals attack: The effects of mortality salience, infrahumanization of violence, and authoritarianism on support for war

Terror management theory (TMT) suggests that people are motivated to elevate themselves above other animals as a way of denying their creatureliness and mortality. Based on this reasoning, the present study assessed whether infrahumanizing violence by emphasizing its similarities to animal aggression would lead to reduced support for war, especially when mortality is salient. This hypothesis was supported among participants high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), who are especially prone to infrahumanize outgroup members and are generally more supportive of military action against outgroups. RWA was associated with greater support for war against Iran, except when primed with thoughts of death and violence as an infrahuman behavior. These data suggest that by portraying violence as something instinctual and creaturely, it may be possible to reduce inter-group hostility and aggression among individuals who tend to be more dispositionally aggressive, particularly in the context of the death awareness that often exacerbates inter-group conflict.     

Antisemitism in Sweden and Finland A documentation and a psychoanalytic discussion

Political developments in Sweden during the last decade, including a period of increased activities of the extreme right, coincide with a resurgence of previously suppressed antisemitic sentiments in the media and among politicians of different affiliations. Classical, often traditional Christian, antisemitic formulations are published in both Sweden and Finland in connection with media reports of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. An increase of signs of anti-Jewish hatred among young Muslim immigrants in Sweden is described, as is the Rami-Bergman affair in the 1980s at Uppsala University in which a Professor of Theology testified under oath that there is a compelling Biblical commandment for Jews to kill strangers. Recent antisemitic statements made by high-ranking Finnish dignitaries of government, parliament and church against the background of 20'h century Finnish history are discussed and a government decision to deprive Israel of Finnish-made gasmasks during the American war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq is noted. We contend that traditional antisemitic thought patterns are visible in the Nordic countries and that they can be understood in terms of envy, the narcissism of small differences, the return of the repressed, and as representing an unconscious resentment against truthfulness.     

Killing from a Distance: A Christian Ethical Evaluation of CIA Targeted Drone Killings

This article provides an ethical evaluation of the CIA's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) to target so‐called terror suspects and insurgents. It utilises Christian informed deontological and virtue‐ethical criteria to assess this practise. These criteria include just intent, charity, proportionality, moral consistency, truthfulness, mercy, courage and prudence. The article concludes that the UAV target programme is morally problematic. The United States’ ‘kill not capture’ policy as exemplified in the use of ‘signature’ strikes defies the virtues at stake. By using UAV's as tools for preventive warfare, utilising armed UAV's that are weapons of war outside areas of armed conflict and disregarding the principles of transparency, last resort and proportionality, the United States is employing UAV's in a morally illegitimate and imprudent way, and is setting precedents that might have dire consequences for global peace and the security of future generations.     

Ulama, the state, & war: community Islamic leaders in the Aceh conflict

In recent years, much has been said of the relationship between the headmasters of Islamic boarding schools (ulama), the state, and war. Hoping to clarify how ulama behave in times of war and why they react as they do, I look to the recent secessionist conflict in Aceh, Indonesia. Based on extensive village fieldwork, I find that in response to the conflict, Aceh’s ulama were divided; some supported the rebels, some supported the state, and some remained neutral. These positions were largely predicted by combatant control, a pragmatic response to conflict dynamics. Sub-regional comparisons, temporal comparisons, and interviews suggest that while many ulama sided with power, they also sided against human rights abuses, a concern for social justice which may be rooted in religious sentiment after all.     

“Never Again War”

This essay addresses the complexities of the Roman Catholic position on war by evaluating recent documentary evidence, attending to the contemporary challenges of terrorism and humanitarian interventions. It presents two arguments. First, attending to traditional Catholic resources for assessing war, papal criticism of recent military action, and debates about a recent shift in Catholic just war logic, this essay argues that Catholic teaching on war has undergone a repositioning in a pacifist direction. Second, it contends that recent critiques of this shift in position by scholars such as George Weigel and James Turner Johnson, however, are wrong to categorize this a “functional pacifism.” Though a development from within just war theory and pacifist reasoning, the Church's new stance does not operate as a type of pacifism, allowing too many possibilities for justified armed conflict to be labeled as “functional” pacifism. The essay concludes by examining the traditional Catholic theological commitments that place limits on any movement toward pacifism, precluding even a functionally pacifist position.     

The Impact of Group Norms and Generalization of Risks across Groups on Judgments of War Behavior

This paper investigates the effects of war experiences across three different levels (individuals, groups, and contexts) on moral judgments related to violations of humanitarian norms. Competing hypotheses derived from different theoretical perspectives are empirically evaluated. Social psychological studies of war traditionally highlight a reversal of morality and group norms justifying violence against outgroups. Rationalistic models insist on the importance of realistic costs on the choice of individuals. As a complement to these traditions, we suggest that situations in which risks are generalized across group boundaries tend to provoke a strengthening of principles, such as humanitarian norms, that enable the protection of the material and symbolic integrity of a community. Multilevel analyses of the international People on War survey dataset (N = 8,121) show that support for the ingroup's struggle, at both individual and group levels, predicts stronger justification of violence. Simultaneously, at the context level, generalization of war‐related risks predicts stronger condemnation of violations of humanitarian principles. These findings are consistent with a collective vulnerability model and, only in part, with the intractable conflict model.     

An attribution-emotion-action interpretation of the “evil eye” in everyday conflict situations

An attribution-emotion-action model was used to examine individuals’ willingness to seek for another person's face in conflict situations. To induce interpersonal conflict and frustration, participants were engaged in the ultimatum bargaining game (UBG) where they received predetermined offers. A simple UBG consists of two players, a Proposer and a Responder, who must decide how to divide a resource. Our findings confirm our predictions in that during the interpersonal conflict (i.e., betraying the norm of equality in the UBG), participants made more controllable based attributions, felt more frustrated (less sympathetic), and more likely requested to view the Proposer's photograph than when there is no conflict. Stated differently, in conflict situations, the likelihood of seeking another person's face increases when controllable attributions are made and when frustration is felt.     

The impact of the American War on Terror on Malaysian Islam

This essay provides an introductory discussion of the impact of the American war on terrorism on Malaysia, a Muslim country with a long record of parliamentary democracy and one of the most developed in the Muslim world. With a discussion of a possible decades-long US military and political engagement with the Muslim world as a background, the essay presents a detailed account of the impact of the US wars in Afghanistan, the Philippines and Iraq on Malaysian national politics, particularly on its political Islam. It is argued that the war on terrorism has benefited Mahathir Mohamad, helping to reverse his declining political fortunes following his sacking of Anwar Ibrahim as his deputy, which influenced his retirement from politics. The essay explains the reasons, external and domestic, for Malaysia's participation in the global war on terrorism and the extent of its involvement, including its leadership role in anti-terrorism in the Muslim world. It also discusses the views of Mahathir and Anwar on the roots of Muslim terrorism and what it will take to overcome this problem. Both believe the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is crucial to the defeat of terrorism in the Muslim world. The essay concludes with an examination of the possibility of Malaysia entering a new phase in its war on terrorism as Abdullah Badawi, Mahathir's successor, and Anwar appear to have convergent views on political Islam and on the importance of democracy as a tool to fight terrorism.     

Response To Jason Springs

Jason Springs’s Healthy Conflict in Contemporary American Society is a masterful attempt to practice productive conflict and democratic dialogue in the face of static antagonisms and deep-seated divisions. In my response, I underscore Springs’s insistence on mediating between the moral imagination of Richard Rorty and the prophetic critique of Cornel West. For the author of Healthy Conflict, any hope in the survival of democracy relies on balancing critique of domination with constructive proposals for a more just and equitable world. On the one hand, Springs rejects any strong distinction between moral imagination and socio-political critique; in fact, he argues for their intertwinement, especially in the work of West. At the same time, there are moments when he suggests an opposition between expanding the moral imagination and engaging in the critical enterprise, especially as he identifies the limits in Foucault regarding normativity and democratic struggle. I respond to this slippage by arguing that Foucault, and critical theory more broadly, open up possibilities for rethinking ethics, politics, and our relationship to the violence that sustains the order of things.     

A comparison of concepts in self-psychology and Winnicott's theory of the development of the self

The humiliation and traumatization of political opponents during periods of violent and non-violent conflict can create deadlocked situations with great potential for regression, and may serve to aggravate the conflict or escalate the level of violence. In this article, I will examine this type of regressive dynamic. My point of departure is the current terror situation and the “war against terror” as it is being conducted in different parts of the world. The key concepts in this connection are violations of human rights, victim psychology, group processes and the development of regressive group identities. Political-ideological-religious discourses can serve to mediate between collective unconscious fantasies and the actual misery/humiliation experienced at group and individual levels. They can reinforce an identity as victim, and the significance of this identity is often underestimated when the background of terror and violent conflicts is being analysed.     

“Putin,You Suck”: Affective Sticking Points in the Czech Narrative on “Russian Hybrid Warfare”

Using the case of the Czech narrative on “Russian hybrid warfare” (RHW), this article contributes to the broader question of why narratives succeed. Building on Lacanian psychoanalysis, narrative scholarship, and affect/emotions research in International Relations, we suggest that narrative success is facilitated also by two interrelated factors: embedding in broader cultural contexts and the ability to incorporate and reproduce collectively circulating affects. We develop a methodological framework for encircling unobservable affects within discourse via “sticking points”—linguistic phenomena infused with affective investment. We outline three categories of sticking points—valued signifiers, fantasies, and biographical narratives. Utilizing the approach in our case study, we focus on a narrative based around the notion that Russia waged a “hybrid war” against “the West” and that this should be faced with quasi‐military measures, which was successful in changing the language of Czech national security. We show that this narrative incorporated a range of sticking points, which contributed to its relative success. It utilized valued signifiers, such as “the West,” “the Kremlin,” “agents,” and “occupation,” weaved them together into a fantasy of a threat to the nation's “Western” identity, and intertwined this with the biographical narratives of history as a lens for world politics and East/West geopolitics.