For over a millennium, scholars have drawn on contemporaneous paradigms in moral and political philosophy to debate the morality of war, including both when it is legitimate to resort to war and how to conduct it. Some of these thoughts have found their way into modern international law. The body of law known as jus ad bellum, for example, now governs the decision to wage war, while jus in bello governs general wartime conduct. But what about the (distinct) question of what rules should govern post-conflict occupations and beyond -- jus post bellum?
During the last century, post conflict occupation was addressed in both The Hague Land Warfare Regulations of 1907, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Key rules, however, were developed in an era in which sovereign states were the exclusive focus of both international law and most relevant moral and political theorizing. Beginning with World War II, and coinciding with the U.S.’s rise to global superpower status, much has changed. An important, stated objective of many recent post-war occupations has been to democratize states, to ensure both respect for basic human rights and fewer breaches of the future peace.
This symposium will assess the legitimacy and viability of current international law, insofar as it governs the transformation from post-war occupation to post-occupation peace. Using Iraq as a test case, the symposium will test this modern law against both changed contemporary realities and recent developments in moral and political thought. The first panel will bring together a number of renowned moral, political and legal philosophers to address the question of what fundamental obligations the U.S. has to Iraq in moving from occupation to post-occupation. The second panel will assess the current state of the law, and consider whether it has evolved sufficiently from its origins to encompass democratic “nation building” and economic reforms within its ambit. The third panel will, finally, explore the possibility of developing American exit strategies from Iraq that meet these broad moral and legal requirements.
Panel One (morning): Moral Obligations of an Occupier to the Occupied
When a modern, liberal democracy conquers a foreign nation, with the aim of democratizing it, what moral duties, if any, does the conqueror owe to the people of the occupied nation? What does contemporary moral and political philosophy have to say about this important question?
Speakers:
Luncheon Speaker: Noah Feldman (Harvard) (Author, What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building) (confirmed) [ Boston]
Panel Two (afternoon): Legal Obligations of an Occupier
- The law of belligerent occupation, grounded in the 1907 Hague Land Warfare Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, has governed the conduct of occupying powers for the past century. The modern emphasis on democratic reforms, however, conflicts with the law’s emphasis on preserving the status quo to facilitate restoration to the original sovereign. Can modern views of popular sovereignty and emphasis on human rights and private economic liberty be reconciled with the literal provisions of this law? Does the justification for war alter nations’ legal responsibilities? Is the current law consistent with moral obligations to the occupied peoples?
Speakers:
Panel Three (afternoon): Practical Realities: Exiting Iraq
Given the moral and legal obligations of an occupying power to the occupied peoples, what should be the outcome of the U.S. intervention in Iraq? What should be the objective of continued U.S. involvement in that country? What should the forces of the U.S. and its allies be expected to achieve prior to ultimate withdrawal? How can and should the United States and its allies exit Iraq without breaching its moral and legal obligations?
Speakers: