An interdisciplinary course at the intersection of political theory and international relations, which examines justice among nations, focusing on the relationship between justice and necessity in the work of ancient, modern, and contemporary authors. Explores the question of whether international justice is genuine or largely spurious, the extent to which nations are bound to consider the good of other nations, to what extent it is reasonable to expect them to do so, as well as the prospects for a just international order. Overall, the class creates a running dialogue between various thinkers’ views on the proper relationship between justice, advantage, and necessity in international affairs, using Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War as a touchstone for scrutinizing the moral bases of war and peace.

Authors include Walzer, Thucydides, Vitoria, Hobbes, Kant, and Rawls along with several supplementary readings. The course is broken into four unequal parts. In the long first part (“Justice vs. Necessity”) students are introduced to the casuistic model through Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars and then engage in a substantive reading of Thucydides’ History, which is itself a lengthy case study of war. The themes arising in this first part of the course – the relationship between and among competing claims about justice, advantage, and necessity – are then used to explore “The Just War Tradition,” “Modern Realism,” and “Modern Idealism,” respectively.

Students should be able to stand within the intellectual world-views discussed in class and in the readings, and to see in a primary way how the world of international political life aligns and realigns from rival intellectual perspectives. The purpose is to sensitize students to the moral (and prudential) complexities of political practice itself, and to identify enduring moral and practical problems associated with the practice of international politics. The goal is not only for students to be able to ventriloquize key intellectual arguments, but also to test their own primary commitments through a direct confrontation with the course readings.