Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).
And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation.
It might also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.
Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.
(The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.)
*Proposition #6: * Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Agree.
Ow, this proposition gives me a headache. I really really want to Strongly Disagree and hold that nations must must must settle their differences legally. However I’m afraid that, at the end of the day, international law is just not yet such that it permits all military action I feel is justified and forbids all action I feel is not. And so, even though I know it will give me a nudge towards authoritarianism because I’m lumped with those who believe that their country or group should simply act in its own interests and do “what it can get away with”, I reluctantly Agree.
[Tinfoil hat: ON]
Conservative bias!
[Tinfoil hat: OFF]
My caveat is that such action can only be countenanced when the justification is solely humanitarian. Currently, international law recognises military action if [ul][li]A state is acting in self defence against an armed attack.[/li][li] Said military action is explicitly authorised by a UN Security Council vote (vetoes and all).[/ul] Unfortunately, international law still requires UNSC permission to intervene even when eg. clear evidence of ongoing genocide is presented by independent UN experts. (The NATO action against Serbia was, strictly, still in defiance of international law even after the Racak massacre was investigated by a Finnish UN team.) And, what with all the distasteful alliances between veto-holding UNSC members and regimes which continually find themselves being condemned by the UN, it is often altogether too difficult and time-consuming to legalise the required military action in time to save lives. So, I speak here solely of humanitarian action during a time-sensitive crisis.[/li]
Now, we all know that there has been an unauthorised military action recently where the situation had not changed for many years and the humanitarian aspect was dubious, or at least no more pressing than in other places in the world. An imminent “threat” was proposed in order to justify military action in self defence, but attempts to verify that threat were deemed irrelevant. While I personally might have advocated simple “regime change” for humanitarian reasons, I’m afraid that actions like this set such a dangerous precedent that we must be as certain as reasonably possible that they will do more good than harm. The justification for intervention must be crystal clear and supported by genuine independent evidence if we are to embark on so radical a course.
And so, I believe that humanitarian regime change without evidence of a serious, ongoing and time-sensitive crisis must still be subject to UNSC authorisation. Conversely, if evidence of eg. a genocide is presented by UN experts, I believe no such authorisation should be explicitly required, as in the case of self defence. I would like this to be somehow written into international law with the necessary provisos and balances to ensure abuses are minimal. (While I’m at it, I’ll add abolition of the dreaded veto to my wish list as well.)
But, as of right now, international law is such that I believe that there are real and hypothetical scenarios wherein military action defying it are justified. I believe Kosovo and Rwanda were justified (and perhaps Afghanistan by stretching “armed attack”), but Iraq was not. All were, strictly, in breach of international law.