Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:36:53.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - The costs of war

Justice, liability, and the Pottery Barn rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Michael Blake
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Don E. Scheid
Affiliation:
Winona State University, Minnesota
Get access

Summary

By the time they were in Bush’s office, Powell was on a roll.

“You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,” he told the president. “You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.” Privately, Powell and Armitrage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

Recent years have seen a surge in philosophical writing and thinking about jus post bellum – justice after warfare’s end. Just as a war entered into for morally sufficient reasons (jus ad bellum) may be made wrongful if conducted badly (jus in bello), so may a war entered into and conducted well be made wrongful if ended poorly. If, for instance, the people whose interests are nominally the justification for the war are left to suffer indignity or injustice, we are right to think that the entire course of the war is best regarded as morally disreputable. The increased attention given to these ideas is due to facts both inside and outside the world of academia. We are right, of course, to think that the idea of jus post bellum is an important addition to the philosophical literature; the fact that it has become recognized as such, though, is largely attributable to the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, in which the importance of a good ending has been brought home to us in a particularly stark way.

This fact means, of course, that the philosophical debate about justice has not been the only debate to be found. Ideas of justice in warfare have been increasingly prevalent during the past decade of war. Colin Powell’s invocation of the Pottery Barn rule has proven to be a resilient symbol of one particular vision of justice in the ending of war. The idea is that the one who invades a country thereby obtains responsibility for that country: The one who breaks it, in other words, must be the one to fix it. On this vision, a country might – even if its cause and conduct were just – become an unjust aggressor after the fact, by refusing to provide adequate assistance after war.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Woodward, Bob, Plan of Attack (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 150Google Scholar
May, Larry, After War Ends (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Larry and Forcehimes, Andrew (eds.), Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Robert E. and Caldwell, Dan, “Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace,” International Studies Perspective 7 (2006), 309–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, Gary J., “Jus Post Bellum,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32, no. 4 (2004), 384–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orend, Brian, “Jus Post Bellum,” Journal of Social Philosophy 32 (2002), 117–37Google Scholar
May, Larry, Justice After War (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Elster, Jon, Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teitel, Ruti G., Transitional Justice (Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur, “Tort, The Division of Responsibility, and the Law of Tort,” Fordham Law Review 72 (2004), 1811Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules, Risks and Wrongs (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido and Melamed, Douglas, “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85 (1972), 1089–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahbubani, Kishore, Can Asians Think? Understanding the Divide Between East and West (Hanover: Steerforth, 2001)Google Scholar
Blake, Michael, “Collateral Benefit,” Social Philosophy & Policy 23 (2006), 218–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applbaum, Arthur discusses this fact and its relation to Iraq in his article: “Forcing a People to be Free,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35, no. 4 (2007), 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaberson, William, “Conflict in the Balkans: The Law,” New York Times (March 27, 1999)Google Scholar
Baker, Peter, “The Image Bush Just Can’t Escape,” The Washington Post (May 4, 2007)Google Scholar
Siddiqui, Haroon, “Hapless Kurds Double-crossed Again,” Toronto Star (April 4, 1991)Google Scholar
Stothard, Peter, “Allies Search for Face-saving Exit from Kurd Haven,” The Times (June 19, 1991)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • The costs of war
  • Edited by Don E. Scheid, Winona State University, Minnesota
  • Book: The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139567589.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • The costs of war
  • Edited by Don E. Scheid, Winona State University, Minnesota
  • Book: The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139567589.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • The costs of war
  • Edited by Don E. Scheid, Winona State University, Minnesota
  • Book: The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139567589.012
Available formats
×