The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
58 C. Brown<br />
grey would seem to make it well equipped to guide our thinking on so-called<br />
humanitarian interventions, and indeed it has been used in this way, by me<br />
among others (Brown 2000, 2002). Predictably enough, realists and pacifists<br />
find nothing to admire in the distinctions Just War thinking encourages us to<br />
make, but what is slightly more puzzling is the opposition <strong>of</strong> thinkers who fall<br />
into neither camp. Ken Booth, a long-standing anti-realist, but a thinker whose<br />
radicalism is not pacifist in any conventional sense <strong>of</strong> the term, provides an illustration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the hostility <strong>of</strong> this camp in an essay written in response to the Kosovo<br />
campaign <strong>of</strong> 1999 entitled ‘ten flaws <strong>of</strong> just wars’ (Booth 2000). His ten flaws<br />
summarize two different kinds <strong>of</strong> criticisms which ought to attract different<br />
kinds <strong>of</strong> responses. <strong>The</strong> first set is essentially contingent; he suggests that Just<br />
War thinking encourages bad strategy, self-righteousness, self-delusion and disregard<br />
for human security. In response, one might agree that these are bad things<br />
in any circumstances, but one would also want to add that such vices are by no<br />
means the prerogative <strong>of</strong> Just War thinkers but rather can be – and have been –<br />
exhibited by realists and pacifists (and pretty well everyone else for that matter).<br />
Booth’s second set <strong>of</strong> criticisms are much more to the point; the propositions<br />
that Just War is used to justify escalation, destroy opponents, promote the militarization<br />
<strong>of</strong> problems and legitimize war contain much more specific, less<br />
generic, charges, and the reasons given for these criticisms are much more<br />
closely related to the structure <strong>of</strong> Just War thinking than to the personality faults<br />
<strong>of</strong> Just War thinkers. Just War thinking does indeed legitimize some kinds <strong>of</strong><br />
violence, arguing that some problems should be militarized; the sense that in a<br />
conflict where one has justice on one’s side escalation and destruction may have<br />
a dynamic <strong>of</strong> their own is not simply an expression <strong>of</strong> self-righteousness. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are real issues here – although it would be perfectly possible to share Booth’s<br />
critique <strong>of</strong> the Kosovo campaign while preserving the notion <strong>of</strong> a Just War,<br />
arguing that while there might be Just Wars, this wasn’t one.<br />
<strong>The</strong> American comedian Henny Youngman had a mildly sexist response to<br />
the question ‘How’s the wife?’ – ‘Compared to what?’ 3 A good question for<br />
social scientists in general but especially apposite here. What seems out <strong>of</strong> place<br />
with this set <strong>of</strong> criticisms, to me at least, is not their general cogency, but the difficulty<br />
<strong>of</strong> placing them within a wider framework. What is the alternative to Just<br />
War thinking? Compared to what does it legitimize war, promote escalation,<br />
etc.? Booth – who is used here as representative <strong>of</strong> a particular kind <strong>of</strong> radical<br />
thinking in international relations – is not a pacifist and certainly not a realist.<br />
Within what kind <strong>of</strong> framework can his critique <strong>of</strong> Just War thinking be placed?<br />
<strong>The</strong> thought <strong>of</strong> <strong>Carl</strong> <strong>Schmitt</strong> may be helpful here – not so much because<br />
Booth is a closet <strong>Schmitt</strong>ian but because <strong>Schmitt</strong> makes much the same criticisms<br />
<strong>of</strong> the idea <strong>of</strong> Just War as Booth and other radicals but goes further, providing<br />
a fully worked out context within which these criticisms make a great<br />
deal <strong>of</strong> sense. Moreover, although <strong>Schmitt</strong> does have some affinities with at least<br />
classical realism, his critique <strong>of</strong> Just War is far more deeply grounded than their<br />
critique: realists who are bitterly critical <strong>of</strong> Just War thinking essentially base<br />
their opposition on the pragmatic argument that prudence is the most important