Justice and International Affairs
A.Y. 2024/2025
Learning objectives
The course Justice and International Affairs aims to examine the problem of war from a normative perspective, focusing particularly on the framework of just war theory. This theory seeks to determine and explain the normative rules governing the initial resort to war, the conduct of war, and the reconstruction after the war. The primary objective of the course is to develop students' ability to use evaluative language for interpreting and assessing events and actions related to war, which require normative judgment. The central questions explored include: can war be morally justified? Under what conditions? Through a combination of theoretical analysis, presentations, and class discussions, students will learn to critically engage with various normative perspectives and develop their own argumentative abilities
Expected learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
1. Explain the complex philosophical and normative questions surrounding war.
2. Identify and explain the key differences among major normative approaches to judging war, including political realism, pacifism, and just war theory.
3. Critically assess the primary debates within just war theory, including:
- The conditions for the permissible initiation of war (jus ad bellum).
- The moral duties of combatants during war (jus in bello).
- The morality and nature of terrorism.
- The permissibility of torture in extreme circumstances.
- Moral concerns surrounding recent advances in military technology.
- Issues of post-war reconstruction (jus post bellum).
4. Construct and critically evaluate normative arguments by providing well-reasoned justifications for specific normative positions concerning war and its related circumstances.
5. Investigate particular political issues by debating contrasting and opposite theses on the bases of academic articles or with respect to specific cases.
1. Explain the complex philosophical and normative questions surrounding war.
2. Identify and explain the key differences among major normative approaches to judging war, including political realism, pacifism, and just war theory.
3. Critically assess the primary debates within just war theory, including:
- The conditions for the permissible initiation of war (jus ad bellum).
- The moral duties of combatants during war (jus in bello).
- The morality and nature of terrorism.
- The permissibility of torture in extreme circumstances.
- Moral concerns surrounding recent advances in military technology.
- Issues of post-war reconstruction (jus post bellum).
4. Construct and critically evaluate normative arguments by providing well-reasoned justifications for specific normative positions concerning war and its related circumstances.
5. Investigate particular political issues by debating contrasting and opposite theses on the bases of academic articles or with respect to specific cases.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Course syllabus
The course offers an overview of the major normative problems that concern the activity of war. Since war, by its very nature and definition, involves widespread killing and maiming, it raises among the most interesting, intricated, and complex philosophical and normative questions in the field of international affairs. Indeed, if those engaged in a war usually transgress the boundaries and limits of everyday morality, grounded in the convictions that killing and inflicting harm constitute wrongdoings, very few consider war always and totally impermissible. To understand and make sense of this paradox, the course explores classical and contemporary debates in just war theory, discussing also some historical and fictional examples to illustrate ideas and problems that pertain to the domain of war. In particular, the course tackles issues such as the conditions that are to be satisfied in order to permissibly start a war; the duties combatants have during a war; the nature and morality of terrorism; whether there are circumstances in which governments may be allowed to torture their political opponents; moral concerns regarding recent advances in military technology; the problem of reconstruction after a war.
Lecture 1 Political Realism, Pacifism, and Just War Theory
Lecture 2 Self-defence and war: some methodological remarks
Lecture 3 The principles of Jus ad bellum
Lecture 4 Anticipations and interventions
Lecture 5 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 6 The principles of Jus in bello
Lecture 7 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 8 The moral status of combatants
Lecture 9 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 10 Non-combatant immunity
Lecture 11 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 12 Terrorism
Lecture 13 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 14 Torture
Lecture 15 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 16 Remote warfare
Lecture 17 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 18 Jus post bellum
Lecture 19 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 20 Wrap up
Lecture 1 Political Realism, Pacifism, and Just War Theory
Lecture 2 Self-defence and war: some methodological remarks
Lecture 3 The principles of Jus ad bellum
Lecture 4 Anticipations and interventions
Lecture 5 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 6 The principles of Jus in bello
Lecture 7 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 8 The moral status of combatants
Lecture 9 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 10 Non-combatant immunity
Lecture 11 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 12 Terrorism
Lecture 13 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 14 Torture
Lecture 15 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 16 Remote warfare
Lecture 17 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 18 Jus post bellum
Lecture 19 Presentations and discussion
Lecture 20 Wrap up
Prerequisites for admission
No specific prior knowledge is required to successfully attend the course or take the exam.
Teaching methods
- Traditional frontal lectures
- Presentations offered by students on specific texts and cases
- Discussions of case studies and short videos
- Group discussion
- Presentations offered by students on specific texts and cases
- Discussions of case studies and short videos
- Group discussion
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for 1. attendant students and 2. non-attendant students
1. Attendant students
General readings
Walzer, Michael (1977), Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books (Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
Meterials for attendant students' presentations
Students are required and expected to complete the readings selected by their colleagues for presentation in advance of the relevant session in which such readings will be discussed in class.
Lecture 5: Political realism, pacifism, just war theory, jus ad bellum, humanitarian intervention
· Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978), "A Realist Theory of International Politics" and "The Science of International Politics", Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Knopf, pp. 1-25.
· Walzer, Michael (1977), "Against realism", in Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-20.
· Anscombe, G.E.M. (1981), "War and Murder", in Ethics, Religion, and Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: https://philpapers.org/archive/ANSWAM.pdf
· McMahan, Jeff (2005), "Just cause for war", Ethics and International Affairs, 19, No. 3, pp. 1-21.
· Shue, Henry (2007), "What would a justified preventive military attack look like?", in H.Shue and D. Rodin (eds.), Preemption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 222-46.
· Holder, Cindy (2008), "Responding to humanitarian crises", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-104.
Lecture 7: Jus in bello
· Nagel, Thomas (1972), "War and massacre", Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, No. 2, pp. 123-44.
· Hurka, Thomas (2005), "Proportionality in the morality of war", Philosophy and Public Affairs 33, No. 1, pp. 34-66.
Lecture 9: The moral status of combatants
· McMahan, Jeff (2006), "On the moral equality of combatants", Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, No. 2, pp. 377-93.
· Hurka, Thomas (2007), "Liability and just cause", Ethics and International Affairs, 21, No. 2, pp. 199-218.
· Quong, Jonathan (2012), "Liability to Defensive Harm", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40, No. 1, pp. 45-77.
Lecture 11: Non-combatant immunity
· May, Larry (2005), "Killing naked soldiers: distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants", Ethics and International Affairs 19, No. 3, pp. 39-53.
· Fabre, Cecile (2009), "Guns, food, and liability to attack in war", Ethics, 120, No.1, pp. 36-63.
· Lazar, Seth (2010), "The responsibility dilemma for killing in war: a review essay", Philosophy and Public Affairs 38, No. 2, pp. 180-213.
Lecture 13: Terrorism
· Coady, Cecil A. J. (2004), "Terrorism, Morality and Supreme Emergency", Ethics, 114, No. 4, pp. 772-789.
· Scheffler, Samuel (2006), "Is terrorism morally distinctive?", Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
· McPherson, Lionel K. (2007), "Is terrorism distinctively wrong?", Ethics, 117, No. 3, pp. 524-46.
Lecture 15: Torture
· Sussman, David (2005), "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No.1 pp., pp. 1-33.
· Bufacchi, Vittorio and Arrigo, Jean Maria (2006), "Torture, terrorism and the state: a refutation of the ticking-bomb argument", Journal of Applied Philosophy 23, No. 3, pp. 355-73.
· Miller, Seumas (2006), "Torture and Counterterrorism", The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, No. 55, pp. 83-106.
Lecture 17: Remote Warfare
· Killmister, S. (2008), "Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications", Journal of Applied Philosophy, No. 25, pp. 121-133.
· Strawser, Bradley. J. (2010), "Moral predators: the duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles", Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4), pp. 342-68.
· Amoroso, Daniele and Tamburrini Guglielmo (2018), "The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems", Global Jurist, No. 18: art. 20170012. doi:10.1515/gj-2017-0012
Lecture 18: Jus post bellum
· Arendt, Hannah (1964) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York: Penguin Classics, excerpts + Arendt, Hannah & Jaspers, Karl (1992), Hannah Arendt-Karl Jaspers Correspondence 1926-1969, New York: Mariner Books, excerpts.
· May, Larry (2005), "Superior Orders, Duress, and Moral Perception", in Crimes Against Humanity: a normative account. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170-200.
· Wellman, Christopher Heath (2008), "Amnesties and international law", In Larry May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-65.
2. Non-attendant students
General readings necessary for the first part of the written test
· Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Orend, Brian, "War", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Walzer, Michael (1977), Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books (Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
· Frowe, Helen (2015), The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction, London: Routledge (Ch. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).
Specific readings for the second part of the written test
Students are required to choose one argumens from those proposed below in order to be able to answer one essay question in the second part of the written test.
Jus ad bellum
· McMahan, Jeff (2005), "Just cause for war", Ethics and International Affairs, 19, No. 3, pp. 1-21.
· Hurka, Thomas (2007), "Liability and just cause", Ethics and International Affairs, 21, No. 2, pp. 199-218.
· May, Larry (2008), "The principle of just cause", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-66.
Humanitarian intervention
· Smith, Michael (1998), "Humanitarian intervention: an overview of the ethical issues", Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 63-79.
· Holder, Cindy (2008), "Responding to humanitarian crises", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-104.
· Pattison, James (2013), "Is there a duty to intervene? Intervention and the responsibility to protect", Philosophy Compass, Vol. 8, N. 6, pp. 570-79.
Combatants and non-combatants
· McMahan, Jeff (2009), "Civilian immunity and civilian liability", in Killing in War, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 203-35.
· Lazar, Seth (2010), "The responsibility dilemma for killing in war: a review essay", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 180-213.
· Fabre, Cecile (2009), "Guns, food, and liability to attack in war", Ethics, 120, No.1, pp. 36-63.
Terrorism and torture
· Miller, Seumas, "Torture", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Shue, Henry (1978), "Torture", Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 7, No. 2, pp, 124-43.
· Sussman, David (2005), "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No.1 pp., pp. 1-33.
Remote Warfare
· Killmister, S. (2008), "Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications", Journal of Applied Philosophy, No. 25, pp. 121-133.
· Strawser, Bradley. J. (2010), "Moral predators: the duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles", Journal of Military Ethics, No. 9, pp. 342-68.
· Amoroso, Daniele and Tamburrini Guglielmo (2018), "The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems", Global Jurist, No. 18: art. 20170012. doi:10.1515/gj-2017-0012.
Jus post bellum and transitional justice
· May, Larry (2005), "Superior Orders, Duress, and Moral Perception", in Crimes Against Humanity: a normative account. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170-200.
· Wellman, Christopher Heath (2008), "Amnesties and international law", In Larry May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-65.
Brian Orend (2007), "Jus post bellum: the perspective of a just-war theorist", Leiden Journal of International Law, 20, pp. 571-91.
1. Attendant students
General readings
Walzer, Michael (1977), Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books (Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
Meterials for attendant students' presentations
Students are required and expected to complete the readings selected by their colleagues for presentation in advance of the relevant session in which such readings will be discussed in class.
Lecture 5: Political realism, pacifism, just war theory, jus ad bellum, humanitarian intervention
· Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978), "A Realist Theory of International Politics" and "The Science of International Politics", Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Knopf, pp. 1-25.
· Walzer, Michael (1977), "Against realism", in Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-20.
· Anscombe, G.E.M. (1981), "War and Murder", in Ethics, Religion, and Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: https://philpapers.org/archive/ANSWAM.pdf
· McMahan, Jeff (2005), "Just cause for war", Ethics and International Affairs, 19, No. 3, pp. 1-21.
· Shue, Henry (2007), "What would a justified preventive military attack look like?", in H.Shue and D. Rodin (eds.), Preemption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 222-46.
· Holder, Cindy (2008), "Responding to humanitarian crises", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-104.
Lecture 7: Jus in bello
· Nagel, Thomas (1972), "War and massacre", Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, No. 2, pp. 123-44.
· Hurka, Thomas (2005), "Proportionality in the morality of war", Philosophy and Public Affairs 33, No. 1, pp. 34-66.
Lecture 9: The moral status of combatants
· McMahan, Jeff (2006), "On the moral equality of combatants", Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, No. 2, pp. 377-93.
· Hurka, Thomas (2007), "Liability and just cause", Ethics and International Affairs, 21, No. 2, pp. 199-218.
· Quong, Jonathan (2012), "Liability to Defensive Harm", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40, No. 1, pp. 45-77.
Lecture 11: Non-combatant immunity
· May, Larry (2005), "Killing naked soldiers: distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants", Ethics and International Affairs 19, No. 3, pp. 39-53.
· Fabre, Cecile (2009), "Guns, food, and liability to attack in war", Ethics, 120, No.1, pp. 36-63.
· Lazar, Seth (2010), "The responsibility dilemma for killing in war: a review essay", Philosophy and Public Affairs 38, No. 2, pp. 180-213.
Lecture 13: Terrorism
· Coady, Cecil A. J. (2004), "Terrorism, Morality and Supreme Emergency", Ethics, 114, No. 4, pp. 772-789.
· Scheffler, Samuel (2006), "Is terrorism morally distinctive?", Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
· McPherson, Lionel K. (2007), "Is terrorism distinctively wrong?", Ethics, 117, No. 3, pp. 524-46.
Lecture 15: Torture
· Sussman, David (2005), "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No.1 pp., pp. 1-33.
· Bufacchi, Vittorio and Arrigo, Jean Maria (2006), "Torture, terrorism and the state: a refutation of the ticking-bomb argument", Journal of Applied Philosophy 23, No. 3, pp. 355-73.
· Miller, Seumas (2006), "Torture and Counterterrorism", The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, No. 55, pp. 83-106.
Lecture 17: Remote Warfare
· Killmister, S. (2008), "Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications", Journal of Applied Philosophy, No. 25, pp. 121-133.
· Strawser, Bradley. J. (2010), "Moral predators: the duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles", Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4), pp. 342-68.
· Amoroso, Daniele and Tamburrini Guglielmo (2018), "The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems", Global Jurist, No. 18: art. 20170012. doi:10.1515/gj-2017-0012
Lecture 18: Jus post bellum
· Arendt, Hannah (1964) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York: Penguin Classics, excerpts + Arendt, Hannah & Jaspers, Karl (1992), Hannah Arendt-Karl Jaspers Correspondence 1926-1969, New York: Mariner Books, excerpts.
· May, Larry (2005), "Superior Orders, Duress, and Moral Perception", in Crimes Against Humanity: a normative account. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170-200.
· Wellman, Christopher Heath (2008), "Amnesties and international law", In Larry May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-65.
2. Non-attendant students
General readings necessary for the first part of the written test
· Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Orend, Brian, "War", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Walzer, Michael (1977), Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books (Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
· Frowe, Helen (2015), The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction, London: Routledge (Ch. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).
Specific readings for the second part of the written test
Students are required to choose one argumens from those proposed below in order to be able to answer one essay question in the second part of the written test.
Jus ad bellum
· McMahan, Jeff (2005), "Just cause for war", Ethics and International Affairs, 19, No. 3, pp. 1-21.
· Hurka, Thomas (2007), "Liability and just cause", Ethics and International Affairs, 21, No. 2, pp. 199-218.
· May, Larry (2008), "The principle of just cause", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-66.
Humanitarian intervention
· Smith, Michael (1998), "Humanitarian intervention: an overview of the ethical issues", Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 63-79.
· Holder, Cindy (2008), "Responding to humanitarian crises", in L. May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-104.
· Pattison, James (2013), "Is there a duty to intervene? Intervention and the responsibility to protect", Philosophy Compass, Vol. 8, N. 6, pp. 570-79.
Combatants and non-combatants
· McMahan, Jeff (2009), "Civilian immunity and civilian liability", in Killing in War, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 203-35.
· Lazar, Seth (2010), "The responsibility dilemma for killing in war: a review essay", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 180-213.
· Fabre, Cecile (2009), "Guns, food, and liability to attack in war", Ethics, 120, No.1, pp. 36-63.
Terrorism and torture
· Miller, Seumas, "Torture", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
· Shue, Henry (1978), "Torture", Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 7, No. 2, pp, 124-43.
· Sussman, David (2005), "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No.1 pp., pp. 1-33.
Remote Warfare
· Killmister, S. (2008), "Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications", Journal of Applied Philosophy, No. 25, pp. 121-133.
· Strawser, Bradley. J. (2010), "Moral predators: the duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles", Journal of Military Ethics, No. 9, pp. 342-68.
· Amoroso, Daniele and Tamburrini Guglielmo (2018), "The Ethical and Legal Case Against Autonomy in Weapons Systems", Global Jurist, No. 18: art. 20170012. doi:10.1515/gj-2017-0012.
Jus post bellum and transitional justice
· May, Larry (2005), "Superior Orders, Duress, and Moral Perception", in Crimes Against Humanity: a normative account. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170-200.
· Wellman, Christopher Heath (2008), "Amnesties and international law", In Larry May (ed.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-65.
Brian Orend (2007), "Jus post bellum: the perspective of a just-war theorist", Leiden Journal of International Law, 20, pp. 571-91.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The exam structure is different for 1. attendant and 2. non-attendant students.
1. Attendant students
Attendant students are expected, not just to attend classes, but also to actively participate in the discussions of the topics and texts under investigation. Students' participation is evaluated by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. In this manner, students are encouraged to develop and exercise their argumentative capacities and to actively analyse and discuss the arguments relevant for the topics under consideration, providing reasons and justifications for their claims and evaluations.
Students are also evaluated on the basis of their presentations. Students are required to summarize and discuss the central arguments advanced within texts that are selected in advanced by the responsible. In this way, students are encouraged to advance and expand not only their communicative and organizational skills, but also their capacities to understand, evaluate and critically examine the validity of philosophical and normative arguments in an autonomous and independent manner.
Finally, students are required to deliver a paper (5.000 words) on one of the topics discussed during the course and in agreement with the responsible of the course. Papers should represent a piece of independent research, be it a positive argument of one's own, or a critical argument meant to challenge the position of an author discussed during the course. Papers should provide clear and coherent claims apt to defend a position, through the evaluation of its problems and merits.
Final grades will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and final paper as follow:
· 25% Participation
· 35% Presentations
· 40% Final paper
2. Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students are required to take a written exam constituted by two parts. In the first part, students are asked to answer five open questions regarding the major problems and basic notions of just war theory. This part of the written exam is meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings assigned.
In the second part of the written test, students are required to answer one essay question of their choice, among a group. This part of the test is concerned with the specific readings suggested. Indeed, students need to choose one topic of their interest among "jus ad bellum"; "humanitarian intervention"; "combatants and non-combatants"; "terrorism and torture"; "remote warfare"; "just post bellum" in order to write one short essay apt to demonstrate their capacity to tackle and discuss controversial topics concerning the debates about the ethics of war, by assessing and evaluating different and competing arguments.
1. Attendant students
Attendant students are expected, not just to attend classes, but also to actively participate in the discussions of the topics and texts under investigation. Students' participation is evaluated by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. In this manner, students are encouraged to develop and exercise their argumentative capacities and to actively analyse and discuss the arguments relevant for the topics under consideration, providing reasons and justifications for their claims and evaluations.
Students are also evaluated on the basis of their presentations. Students are required to summarize and discuss the central arguments advanced within texts that are selected in advanced by the responsible. In this way, students are encouraged to advance and expand not only their communicative and organizational skills, but also their capacities to understand, evaluate and critically examine the validity of philosophical and normative arguments in an autonomous and independent manner.
Finally, students are required to deliver a paper (5.000 words) on one of the topics discussed during the course and in agreement with the responsible of the course. Papers should represent a piece of independent research, be it a positive argument of one's own, or a critical argument meant to challenge the position of an author discussed during the course. Papers should provide clear and coherent claims apt to defend a position, through the evaluation of its problems and merits.
Final grades will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and final paper as follow:
· 25% Participation
· 35% Presentations
· 40% Final paper
2. Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students are required to take a written exam constituted by two parts. In the first part, students are asked to answer five open questions regarding the major problems and basic notions of just war theory. This part of the written exam is meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings assigned.
In the second part of the written test, students are required to answer one essay question of their choice, among a group. This part of the test is concerned with the specific readings suggested. Indeed, students need to choose one topic of their interest among "jus ad bellum"; "humanitarian intervention"; "combatants and non-combatants"; "terrorism and torture"; "remote warfare"; "just post bellum" in order to write one short essay apt to demonstrate their capacity to tackle and discuss controversial topics concerning the debates about the ethics of war, by assessing and evaluating different and competing arguments.
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Bistagnino Giulia
Professor(s)
Reception:
Second trimester: Wednesdays from 3:00 PM to 6 PM. ATTENTION: Office hours for the week starting Monday, January 6 will take place on Tuesday 7 from 3 pm to 6 pm.
Office hours are held online (via MS Teams) or on campus by appointment via email (Dept. of Social and Political sciences, 2nd floor, room 205).