Evaluating self-defence claims in the United Nations collective security system: between esotericism and exploitability

This thesis is about identifying valid self-defence claims in the UN collective security system. The thesis suggests a fresh theoretical approach to balancing the imperative for adaptation of the right of self-defence with the danger that too broad a right could be exploited by states wishing to justify national policy. The starting point for the thesis is the twin realist criticisms that the right of self- defence is either too narrowly drawn and therefore not fit for the purpose of protecting states‘ interests, or too broadly drawn and therefore hostage to the subjective interpretation of states using force. These problems were intensified during the Administration of former President G.W. Bush in the USA. In this work, these two criticisms are dubbed 'esotericism' and 'exploitation' respectively. The problem of self-defence, as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, is often phrased in terms of a choice between the is of state practice and the ought of abstract norms. In this thesis, it is suggested that no such choice needs to be made. In order to identify a valid self-defence claim, the is of evaluative state practice is harnessed and constrained by a process of argumentation grounded in mutual understanding of the facts of a given case. Two strands of social theory are used to accomplish this. One of them questions whether states have to be conceived as rationally self-interested actors and suggests that the key to the identification of valid self-defence claims is for states to take responsibility for their claims and evaluations of the right. The other strand of theory expands on Habermas‘ idea of the criticizable validity claim. The report that self-defence has been used should act as a starting point for argumentation and not the last word in national process of decision

Evaluating self-defence claims in the United Nations collective security system: between esotericism and exploitability

This thesis is about identifying valid self-defence claims in the UN collective security system. The thesis suggests a fresh theoretical approach to balancing the imperative for adaptation of the right of self-defence with the danger that too broad a right could be exploited by states wishing to justify national policy. The starting point for the thesis is the twin realist criticisms that the right of self- defence is either too narrowly drawn and therefore not fit for the purpose of protecting states‘ interests, or too broadly drawn and therefore hostage to the subjective interpretation of states using force. These problems were intensified during the Administration of former President G.W. Bush in the USA. In this work, these two criticisms are dubbed 'esotericism' and 'exploitation' respectively. The problem of self-defence, as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, is often phrased in terms of a choice between the is of state practice and the ought of abstract norms. In this thesis, it is suggested that no such choice needs to be made. In order to identify a valid self-defence claim, the is of evaluative state practice is harnessed and constrained by a process of argumentation grounded in mutual understanding of the facts of a given case. Two strands of social theory are used to accomplish this. One of them questions whether states have to be conceived as rationally self-interested actors and suggests that the key to the identification of valid self-defence claims is for states to take responsibility for their claims and evaluations of the right. The other strand of theory expands on Habermas‘ idea of the criticizable validity claim. The report that self-defence has been used should act as a starting point for argumentation and not the last word in national process of decision

The Vicious circles of Habermas' cosmopolitics

Habermas’ cosmopolitan project seeks to transform global politics into an emancipatory activity in order to compensate for the disempowering effects of globalization. The project is traced through three vicious circles which stem from Habermas’ commitment to intersubjectivity. Normative politics always raises a vicious circle because politics is only needed to the extent that an issue has become problematized through want of intersubjective agreement. At domestic level Habermas solves this problem by constitutionalizing transcendental presuppositions that political participants cannot avoid making. This fix will not work at the global level because it is pre-political as between human individuals. Habermas therefore premises cosmopolitics on the transformation of nation-states into sites of participatory politics, engagement in which will eventually ignite a global cosmopolitan consciousness. This transformation depends on the constitutionalization of existing UN structures and their enforcement of an undefined and (therefore) ‘uncontroversial’ core of human rights. Unable to ground this project in social practice, Habermas eventually disregards his own lodestar of intersubjectivity based in social practice by relying on the prediscursive concept of human dignity. This move is not merely philosophically inconsistent; it also opens the door to the moralization of politics and the imposition of human rights down the barrel of a gun

Evaluating self-defence claims in the United Nations collective security system : between esotericism and exploitability

This thesis is about identifying valid self-defence claims in the UN collective security system. The thesis suggests a fresh theoretical approach to balancing the imperative for adaptation of the right of self-defence with the danger that too broad a right could be exploited by states wishing to justify national policy. The starting point for the thesis is the twin realist criticisms that the right of self- defence is either too narrowly drawn and therefore not fit for the purpose of protecting states‘ interests, or too broadly drawn and therefore hostage to the subjective interpretation of states using force. These problems were intensified during the Administration of former President G.W. Bush in the USA. In this work, these two criticisms are dubbed 'esotericism' and 'exploitation' respectively. The problem of self-defence, as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, is often phrased in terms of a choice between the is of state practice and the ought of abstract norms. In this thesis, it is suggested that no such choice needs to be made. In order to identify a valid self-defence claim, the is of evaluative state practice is harnessed and constrained by a process of argumentation grounded in mutual understanding of the facts of a given case. Two strands of social theory are used to accomplish this. One of them questions whether states have to be conceived as rationally self-interested actors and suggests that the key to the identification of valid self-defence claims is for states to take responsibility for their claims and evaluations of the right. The other strand of theory expands on Habermas‘ idea of the criticizable validity claim. The report that self-defence has been used should act as a starting point for argumentation and not the last word in national process of decision.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo