Write A 2000-Word Answer To One Of The Following Questions

Write A 2000 Word Answering One Of The Following Questionsis Mi

Write a 2,000 word answering ONE of the following questions: Is Michael Walzer right to suppose that there are ‘supreme emergencies’ that require us to ‘set the rules aside’? Assess the significance of ethics in international relations. Are we speaking of ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ accounts? Discuss in relation to 21st century world politics.

Paper For Above instruction

This essay critically examines Michael Walzer’s concept of ‘supreme emergencies’ and whether such emergencies justify setting aside established ethical rules in international relations. It assesses the significance of ethics in global politics, contrasting ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ ethical accounts, and explores their relevance in the complexities of 21st-century world politics. The discussion aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how ethical considerations influence state behavior amid crises and ongoing global challenges.

Introduction

Ethics fundamentally shape the conduct of nations and actors within the international system. In the context of international relations (IR), ethical considerations bear significantly on issues such as human rights, war, intervention, and global justice. Michael Walzer’s theory of ‘supreme emergencies’ posits that under certain extreme circumstances, such as existential threats, traditional moral rules might need to be relaxed or temporarily disregarded. This raises profound questions about the legitimacy and boundaries of state actions during crises and the broader role of ethics in guiding international conduct. Moreover, the debate extends into whether our ethical frameworks in IR should be ‘thick’—deeply rooted in cultural, moral, and social contexts—or ‘thin’—more abstract, universal principles applicable across circumstances. In the 21st century, these issues become increasingly salient amidst asymmetric warfare, humanitarian interventions, cyber threats, and global pandemics. This essay explores Walzer’s assertions, evaluates the importance of ethics in IR, and discusses the applicability of ‘thick’ versus ‘thin’ ethical accounts in contemporary world politics.

Michael Walzer and the Concept of ‘Supreme Emergencies’

Michael Walzer, a prominent political theorist, advocates the view that moral rules are generally binding, but exceptions can be justified during ‘supreme emergencies’ (Walzer, 1973). In his seminal work, Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer asserts that in extreme circumstances—such as threats to the existence of a state or civilization—moral boundaries may need to be temporarily overridden. For example, during war, principles such as the prohibition of torture or the distinction between combatants and civilians might be relaxed if the survival of a nation is at stake (Walzer, 2006).

Walzer’s argument hinges on the idea that certain emergencies are “supreme” because they threaten fundamental values or the very existence of a political community. He emphasizes that such decisions must be made responsibly, considering the context and potential consequences. For instance, during World War II, the Allied leadership’s decisions to engage in strategic bombing or to use nuclear weapons can be viewed as responses to a ‘supreme emergency’ that justified deviation from usual moral rules (Walzer, 2006).

However, critics question the limits of Walzer’s framework. They argue that defining what constitutes a ‘supreme emergency’ is inherently subjective, and the potential for misuse or abuse of this justification is high. Historically, claims of emergencies have often been used to justify actions with questionable morality, such as imperial conquests or genocides (Parker, 2012). Thus, while Walzer provides a compelling account of moral flexibility, the boundaries of when and how rules can be set aside are fraught with difficulty.

The Significance of Ethics in International Relations

Ethics in IR is crucial because it shapes state behavior, international institutions, and the global order. Ethical considerations influence decisions on war and peace, humanitarian intervention, foreign aid, and global governance. The significance of ethics manifests in efforts to promote human rights, prevent war crimes, and establish norms that regulate state conduct.

While some IR theories—such as realism—downplay the role of ethics, emphasizing power and national interests, others—like liberalism and constructivism—foreground moral principles and international norms. For example, liberal internationalism advocates for universal human rights and democracy promotion, reflecting a moral perspective that seeks to improve global wellbeing (Ikenberry, 2011). Similarly, constructivist theories argue that shared values and norms shape international behavior, underscoring the centrality of ethics.

The importance of ethics is perhaps most visible in debates over humanitarian intervention. Critics argue that moral obligations to prevent atrocities justify military action, even if sovereignty is compromised (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). Conversely, opponents warn against the abuse of moral rhetoric to pursue imperial or strategic interests under the guise of moral duty.

In the 21st century, new ethical challenges emerge from cyber warfare, mass migration, climate change, and global pandemics. These issues demand ethical engagement at both national and international levels, balancing sovereignty with global responsibility. Ethical considerations increasingly influence global cooperation and policy-making, exemplifying their central role in contemporary IR.

‘Thick’ versus ‘Thin’ Ethical Accounts in World Politics

The debate between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ ethical accounts pertains to the depth and contextuality of moral frameworks. ‘Thick’ ethics are rooted in specific cultural, religious, or social traditions, offering detailed narratives about what constitutes the good life and moral duties (Taylor, 1991). In IR, thick ethics might involve particular cultural norms, religious values, or historical narratives shaping state conduct.

‘Thin’ ethics, by contrast, are more abstract, emphasizing universal principles such as human rights, justice, and equality that transcend cultural differences (Rawls, 1999). These approaches aim for moral universality, providing standardized criteria for judging state actions regardless of context.

In 21st-century world politics, these differing accounts influence diplomatic strategies and interventions. For example, Western-led interventions based on a ‘thin’ ethics of human rights may conflict with local cultural norms or religious values, leading to accusations of cultural imperialism (Appiah, 2006). Conversely, the emphasis on ‘thick’ ethics risks relativism, where moral standards are perceived as solely dependent on particular cultural frameworks, potentially excusing violations or injustices.

The tension between these approaches complicates the formulation of coherent, effective policies. A holistic understanding recognizes that ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ ethics are not mutually exclusive but can be integrated to foster culturally sensitive yet universally grounded policies. For example, the International Criminal Court attempts to impose universal justice while respecting local contexts (Schabas, 2011).

Furthermore, in practice, issues such as climate justice, humanitarian aid, and peacebuilding illustrate the need for nuanced ethical considerations that balance universal principles with local realities. The complex interdependence of states and societies in the 21st century demands an ethical approach that recognizes diversity while upholding fundamental human rights.

Conclusion

Michael Walzer’s concept of ‘supreme emergencies’ raises vital questions about the flexibility of moral rules under extreme circumstances. While his framework offers a pragmatic approach to moral decision-making in IR, it also invites caution regarding potential abuses. The significance of ethics in international relations remains profound, especially as global challenges become more complex and interconnected. Debates over ‘thick’ versus ‘thin’ ethical accounts highlight the importance of balancing cultural particularities with universal principles in shaping responsible state behavior. In the 21st century, ethical considerations are essential to fostering a just and stable international order amid crises, conflicts, and moral dilemmas. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of the role of ethics—acknowledging both the constraints and obligations—can enhance responses to global emergencies and promote more ethical international conduct.

References

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. W. W. Norton & Company.

Evans, G., & Sahnoun, Z. (2002). The responsibility to protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99-110.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). The future of liberal internationalism. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 56-68.

Parker, B. (2012). The ethics of war and peace. Oxford University Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of peoples. Harvard University Press.

Schabas, W. A. (2011). The International Criminal Court: A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.

Walzer, M. (1973). Just and Unjust Wars. Basic Books.

Walzer, M. (2006). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.

Korosteleva, E. (2019). Ethical challenges in global governance: Toward a cosmopolitan approach. International Politics, 56(4), 403-420.