Eastern Religions

Professor David Glazier

Two millennia ago, Cicero famously proclaimed inter arma enim silent leges (in times of war the law falls silent). Although still widely believed, this maxim is demonstrably false. The conduct of hostilities is actually governed by a robust body of international law, which reflects a serious effort by states to balance competing values of “military necessity” and “humanitarian” considerations. This series explores the development and content of these rules, considering both their application to current events, such as the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, and their ability to adapt to the emerging challenges posed by rapidly evolving technology and threats such as ISIS.

October 6: Historical Development of the Law

To better understand the current law, it is helpful to know something about how it came to be. This first class will explore some of the key figures and events responsible for the development of the modern law of war, and will examine how rules for state conduct come to be binding law in the first place. You will encounter, among others, Francis Lieber, who was both a key player in the development of the law and the first-ever political scientist; and Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross and first winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

October 20: The Law of War Today

Building on the discussion in the first class, we will concentrate on fleshing out our understanding of the full scope of the current law, looking beyond the well-known Geneva Conventions of 1949 at the multitude of other, less well-known sources of law. The class will examine agreements binding on the United States, as well as the most significant rules that our country has refused to accept, even though many, if not most, of our closest allies follow them.

November 3: Current and Future Challenges and Accountability

In this final class — coincidentally just days before the U.S. presidential election — we will consider the ability of rules developed in an era of state-centered violence to adapt to previously unimaginable situations such as cyber-attacks, autonomous weapons, and the threat of “global” terrorism. Can we, and should we, continue to apply rules developed in a prior age? Or do we need to “take the gloves off” and resume waterboarding (or worse?) in order to protect ourselves against these emerging tactics and technologies until states can agree on new rules more appropriate for our times? We will also examine what actually constitutes a war crime and will consider whether acts such as the downing of flight MH 17 over Ukraine or the U.S. attack on the Medicin Sans Frontiere’s hospital in Afghanistan were actually criminal.