Theories of Justification and Political Violence: Examples from Four Groups

Terrorism and Political Violence

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 23-46

  O'Boyle, Garrett ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036387270     PISSN: 09546553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/714005612     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Nancy Davis, 'Contemporary Deontology', in Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell 1991) p.205.
2. Samuel Scheffler, 'Agent-centred Restrictions, Rationality, and the Virtues', in S. Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and Its Critics (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1988) p.244.
3. Ted Honderich, Violence for Equality: Inquiries in Political Philosophy, 3rd edn. (London: Routledge 1989) ch.3.
4. Philip Pettit, 'Consequentialism', in Singer (note 1) p.204.
5. Bernard Williams has some interesting things to say about individual squeamishness in the face of rationally prescribed consequentialist acts in his essay, 'Consequentialism and Integrity', in Scheffler (note 2) p.20ff.
6. Scheffler (note 2) pp.251-2. Scheffler argues that the persuasiveness of consequentialist accounts derives from the fact that they appear to embody a conception of rationality that we recognize from many diverse contexts, 'and whose power we have good independent reason to respect'. This form of rationality Scheffler calls a maximizing rationality, which has at its core the idea that, if one accepts the desirability of a certain goal being achieved, and if one has a choice between two alternatives, one of which is certain to accomplish the goal better than the other, then it is rational to chose the former option over the latter. The notion of a maximizing rationality is also central to rational choice theory.
7. This brings us to the consideration of 'satisficing' consequentialism, as discussed by Michael Slote, 'Satisficing Consequentialism', in P. Pettit (ed.), Consequentialism, International Research Library of Philosophy, vol.6 (Aldershot: Dartmouth 1993) p.352: 'could not someone who held that rightness depended solely on how good an act's consequences were also want to hold that less than the best was sometimes good enough, hold, in other words, that an act might qualify as morally right through having good enough consequences, even though better consequences could have been produced in the circumstances'. This is interesting in a number of ways. Importantly, it recognizes the process of goal attainment as dynamic, and it seeks to apply the common-sense, and indeed rational, consideration of the increasing marginal cost and/or diminishing marginal utility to this process. At some point, it seems plausibly to suggest, continued expenditure of time and effort at some given level of commitment is not worth it, as what has been achieved is good enough. It does not rule out continued efforts at a lower and less intense level of commitment. However, it raises many questions, particularly to do with the interpretation of 'the best that can be achieved'. Can we ever know what 'the best that can be achieved' really is, and how do we know when 'good enough' is good enough relative to 'the best'? Is there even a final 'best' endpoint, rather than just the continued incremental additions of extra achievement? Perhaps we can never know until after the fact, as in the post hoc justifications of 'actual consequence utilitarianism' (see Marcus Singer, 'Actual Consequence Utilitarianism', also in Pettit). Satisficing consequentialism, applied to the issue of the justifiability of political violence may, for example, dictate the earliest possible abandonment of revolutionary violence, and even revolutionary intent, in favour of reformism. But then, which sort of reforms are 'good enough' to warrant this? In response to Slote, Pettit argues that unless there are good, if non-conclusive, reasons for any one of which a wide-scope consequentialist might prefer a satisficing to a maximizing policy, satisficing is an irrational policy to pursue. This is to say that, in the absence of a determinate relationship between 'the best' and 'good enough', it is not rational to seek less rather than more. However, the issue of what can be said to constitute 'the best' in a dynamic process of attainment is still problematic.
8. Animal Liberation Front, No Compromise: Animal Liberation Front and More, http://nocompromise.org/alf/alf.html, accessed 24 May 1999.
9. This quote is taken from a Sinn Fein political education document entitled Freedom. It was published as a pamphlet in 1991. The version here was taken from the Sinn Fein website, www.sinnfein.ie, accessed 30 Aug. 2000. The document continues thus: Northern Ireland (the Six Counties) represented the greatest land area in which Irish unionists could maintain a majority. The partition line first proposed had encompassed the whole province of Ulster (nine counties). Unionists rejected this because they could not maintain a majority in such an enlarged area. The partition of Ireland was merely an innovation of the British government's tried and trusted colonial strategy of divide and rule, used throughout its former colonial empire. However, while the British government had the single objective of 'protecting English interests', its strategy for achieving this created deeper, more acute and more bitter multiple divisions in Irish society than those previously fostered, and which, until then, had helped sustain British rule in Ireland. Partition did not only physically divide the national territory of Ireland. It spawned the Civil War in 1922, which has moulded politics in the 26-County state ever since. It made more acute the divisions between nationalists and unionists in the Six-County state, and between the populations of the two states. Not least, it created real and lasting divisions among nationalists themselves. Increasingly, partition has generated the foolish and self-interested ostrich mentality in the power structures of the two statelets, which seeks piecemeal treatment of the symptoms, through coercion and censorship, instead of root-and-branch treatment of the problem. Throughout the 19th century and until partition in this century, the British government provided its colonial rule in Ireland with a cover of 'democracy'. Like other colonial powers in continental Europe, which 'integrated' their colonies into the imperialist state, Britain 'integrated' Ireland into the 'United Kingdom' through the Act of Union (1801), which made provision for Irish representation at the British parliament. In the changed conditions of a full-blown struggle for independence in 1920, new means for 'protecting British interests' had to be found together with a new 'justification' for the continuing British presence which that necessitated. The 'wishes' of Irish unionists in North East Ireland have provided that 'justification' since partition.
10. Quoted in Sean Cronin, Irish Nationalism: A History of Its Roots and Ideology (Dublin: The Academy Press 1980) p.125.
11. The Green Book is published in full as an appendix to Martin Dillon, The Dirty War (London: Arrow 1990) pp.482-96.
12. Interview with Seán Mac Stiofáin, in the Revolutionary Communist Group, Hands Off Ireland! 10 (April 1980) pp.10-11. It is very likely that Mac Stiofáin's remarks were tailored towards the magazine's audience.
13. 'I, for one, regard the revolution in all these countries [Algeria, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Aden, among others] as one revolutionary struggle - the struggle against capitalism and its offspring - imperialism and racism. And the revolutionary in Ireland - his first duty is to promote the revolution in Ireland and by doing so he is helping the revolution all over the world. If only by good example! Revolutionary success in any part of the world is a success for all because it is going to encourage revolutionaries elsewhere to take action. So I regard our struggle in Ireland, the struggle of the Basque people, the struggle in Zimbabwe, in Southern Africa, in Southern America - anywhere in the world - as one struggle. Our victory will be their victory. Any defeat that any revolutionary movement suffers is a defeat for us all. And I'm quite sure that we will see more and more co-operation between revolutionary movements.' Mac Stiofáin, ibid. pp.14-15.
14. Mac Stiofáin, ibid. p.11.
15. Attributed to Ulrike Meinhof, The Concept Urban Guerrilla, 1971, an English language extract prepared by Richard Huffman. Many RAF statements in the original German are available on the Internet. The source for those referred to are from Richard Huffman's This is Baader-Meinhof, http://www.baader-meinhof.com, accessed 24 Aug. 2000. I would like to thank Marion Seibert and Heinz Brandenburg, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, for translating some of the statements.
16. Attributed to Ulrike Meinhof, The Concept Urban Guerrilla, 1971, an English language extract prepared by Richard Huffman. Many RAF statements in the original German are available on the Internet. The source for those referred to are from Richard Huffman's This is Baader-Meinhof, http://www.baader-meinhof.com, accessed 24 Aug. 2000. I would like to thank Marion Seibert and Heinz Brandenburg, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, for translating some of the statements.
17. Ibid.
18. Attributed to Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin, The Urban Guerrilla and the Class Struggle, c.1974, trans. by Heinz Brandenburg.
19. Ibid.
20. RAF statement on the organization's disbandment, April 1998. The statement is a long and often critical overview of the history of the RAF. In it they say that they are proud to have been part of a revolutionary attempt by a minority to resist the tendencies of capitalist society and contribute towards its overthrow. However, they are critical of some of the organization's past political strategies, particularly of what they see as the dominance of anti-imperialist over social revolutionary theory and praxis.
21. http://www.altculture.com/aentries/a/abortionxc.html, accessed 24 May 1999.
22. The undated Defensive Action statement and the list of 31 signatories to it can be found at http://www.cais.com/agm/main/statemen.htm, accessed 23 Aug. 1999. The veracity of the text is confirmed by newspaper reports, for example The Irish Press, 11 Nov. 1993.
23. Extract from the manual of the Army of God, reprinted in Ms., May-June 1995.
24. Fr Marx's autobiography, Confessions of a Pro-Life Missionary (Human Life International 1988) has a chapter entitled 'Pro-Abortion Jews and the New Holocaust', which includes statements such as 'notice how many Jews led the infamous 1971 abortion planning meeting in Los Angeles, which I exposed', and 'note the large number of abortionist (consult the Yellow Pages) and pro-abortion medical professors who are Jewish'.
25. For a detailed analysis of the theological basis of anti-abortion militancy, I recommend two pamphlets. The first is by an anti-abortion activist, Rev. Paul Hill, entitled 'Should we defend born and unborn children with force?' (1994). It sets out his argument in favour of the use of force with copious Biblical quotation, and answers ten possible objections to his position. The second is by Tom Burghardt of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights (BACORR), entitled 'The Crown Rights of King Jesus: A Brief Outline of Christian Reconstructionism'. Both papers can be obtained from BACORR, which is based in San Francisco.
26. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, 'Islamic Ambivalence to Political Violence: Islamic Law and International Terrorism', German Yearbook of International Law 31 (1988) p.307.
27. Ibid. p.325.
28. Ibid. p.325.
29. Ibid.
30. Verse 2:190-93 of the Qur'an, quoted in ibid. p.326.
31. Verse 9:5, quoted in ibid. p.327.
32. Verse 9:29, quoted in ibid. p.327.
33. Ibid. p.325. Cf. verses 3:28, 4:144, 8:72-3, 9:23 and 71, and 60:1.
34. Ibid. p.325.
35. Ibid. p.328.
36. Ibid. pp.328-9.
37. Ibid. p.330.
38. Ibid. p.331.
39. Ibid. p.333.
40. Remarks by Osama bin Laden in a December 1998 interview with ABC News, in the context of the then US cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan.
41. Interview with John Miller of ABC News, May 1998.
42. An-Na'im (note 25) p.333.
43. Bin Laden (note 39).
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.14, No.2 (Summer 2002), pp.47-76