Law and Sentiment in International Politics

Abstract

Drawing on recent research in moral psychology and neuroscience, this book argues that universal moral beliefs and emotions shaped the evolution of the laws of war, and in particular laws that protect civilians. It argues that civilian protection norms are not just a figment of the modern West, but that these norms were embryonic in earlier societies and civilizations, including Ancient China, early Islam, and medieval Europe. However, despite their ubiquity, this book argues that civilian protection rules are inherently fragile, and that their fragility lies not just in failures of compliance, but also in how moral emotions shaped the design of the law. The same beliefs and emotions that lead people to judge that it is wrong to intentionally target civilians can paradoxically constitute the basis for excusing states for incidental civilian casualties, or collateral damage. To make the laws of war work better for civilians, this book argues that we need to change how we think about the ethics of killing in war.

Universal moral grammar and international contract law.

“…This is significant because, as Traven notes, human cultures demonstrate remarkable diversity and yet still abide by “strikingly similar” fundamental moral rules prohibiting harming innocents, promoting sharing resources with one’s ingroup, and punishing individuals who cheat on agreements or free ride on others’ efforts. This raises the question of how to account for the emergence of common moral rules across the “immense richness and diversity of human cultures” (Traven, 2021, p. 32).…”

“…In this respect, Prinz’s search for a universal moral rule prohibiting harm may be too broad compared to the relatively nuanced types of harm prohibitions that cultures actually exhibit. See Traven (2021) for further discussion on cross-cultural universality in the laws of war.…”