Trying to deal with a problem he saw
Persuaded by other philosophers that world government was not only difficult but probably tyrannical given our many separate identities and the difficulties of ruling across long distances

At the same time, He was outraged by the emense injustices and suffering of war, the ways in which war denied the duty we all have to recognize that every human being should be treated like an end not a means, and recognizing that duty was one of the essential attributes of our claim to a moral conscious thinking existence

War is horrible, world govt is neither desirable or possible, thought about could we imagine a peace that was self executing, self actualizing, by independent states, that would be reliable enough that it should constitute a goal that one should work towards, and would provide a sufficient intellectual guarantee that it would be something sensible, that it was not only good but doable

Came up with idea of hypothetical peace treaty, begins with articles that are designed to create better understanding, enhanced respect, a little more trust amongst existing states that were thougth to be in a state of war where everyone was suspicious of each other and the duty of the statesmen were national security first, but they could begin to do trust building confidence building

If those were tried it opened up the possibility of a constitutional convention, where well meaning statesmen could come together and pledge to ascribe to three definitive articles, which if fulfilled would give everyone the expectation that they could live together in peace

3 articles were first that each state would be a republican government (separation of power between branches, contributes to deliberation, allows a state to be more rational, more careful, less overcome by passions and self interest) secondly that it would be representative government that represented citizens of the country (would align the interests of the ruler with what they represent, the idea that someone could engage in war without rational reason would be much less likely because the state would respond to the representative institutions. That’s step 1, create rational republican state responsive to representative assembly advantaged by a deliberative scheme of constitutionalism

Step 2, formal pledge to each other, that they would live at peace, in ways that respected the rights that each individual had to live at peace, this would create a reliable legal commitment. This commitment would be credible because it was made by these republican states that are responsive and others that could recognize the common rights of all indivuals amongst these states cuz each of these republican states represented the citizens. Credible leagal commitment to peace because of the kinds of institutions they were.

o Defining terrorism, many different things, but what 95% of all terrorist attacks have in common is a strategic goal, to compel modern democracy to withdraw from territory that they view as their homeland of prize greatly
o In that sense, fighting terrorism by sending troops creates kind of a negative loop, have to fight strategy with strategy, off shore strategy

This quote addresses the inherent but not obvious violence created by inequality, in this case economical.

The two major arguments we discussed in class, the conflict trap, and Horizontal inequaly, both address the issue of inequality and how its a form of violence against humanity

The two arguments are very similar and different in their own ways

Aid - a time when it worked, example post war Europe - provided martial aid

Public health is targeted and mortality rates increase, and civilians are less worried about long term future. War kills economy long term, and long term poverty leads to more wars

Trade - reversed pre war isolationist policies to institutionalize free trade through founding of agreements of tarrif and trade

The text presents data of the overwhelming long term costs of war, for instance, major targets of military operations tend to be important to running an effective economy, such as telecom, transportation

Security and Governance - again reversed isolationism, so sacrosanct we refused to join the league of nations, post war ended up founding UN, IMF, and encouraged Europe to create the EU, all systems for mutual governance and support

Founded by world bank to help developing countries grow their economy, discusses the paradox of conflict and poverty - war leads to poverty, poverty leads to war

Those 4 formula for effective policy change are the key to effective policy building, the challenge isnt rebuilding war torn nations, but to break the cycle and reverse the divergence of the poorest nations so that they can progress and catch back up

Part of the reason they lead to conflict is that identities represent a powerful way of mobilizing people. Combines identity and grievance, if they have a big grievance then it is very easy to mobilize behind that identity and the conflict reinforces that identity. More powerful than VI because VI has not identity to mobilize behind

Therefore, the hypothesis is if you have sharp horizontal ineqqualities, then conflict is more likely to happen, and it turns out that conflict ridden countries have drastic HI

Important to note that these are multidemensional inequalities: socio-economical, political, cultural

Distinctions to be made, what we end to do and cannot do is simply blame it on culture, age old animosities between people, a clash of civilizations as huntington calls it, its wrong because people within cultures are in constant conflict

HI is introduced as the inequality among groups with a common idenitty, as opposed to VI which is inequality among individuals

Also cannot say that it is about individual greed, people try to make money to enrich themselves, problematic because the conflicts are group based, need to involve group dynamics and not simply individual greed

Both discuss economic inequality. For Stewart, its a likely factor, for Collier, its a definite factor. Stewarts findings pointed out that where political and socioeconomic inequalities go in the same direction (group identity that is politically excluded and also economically excluded) lead to more conflict, however if the group was poor but still politically included, then conflict was less likely

Both are strongly against blaming cultural differences as the cause of conflict. Collier simply saying that the economic support system is wrong, Stewart is saying that injustices towards something as strong as a social idenitty will lead to conflict