ATS2640: The Ethics of Global Conflict

Despite the handbook saying that Dr. Bob Simpson still ran the unit, Paul was the lecturer and unit co-ordinator. He also happened to be my tutor. I was fairly disappointed at first, because a large portion of why I chose the unit in the first place was that I enjoyed Bob from a previous unit. But Paul was at least as good.

Paul explains things in such a way that makes them really clear without going into laborious depth, which is great. His lectures were always timely and well-structured - perhaps slightly dry at times, but that is probably inevitable for the theory aspects of just war theory.

And speaking of just war theory, that is what the unit is centred on. Just war theory is essentially the idea that war is morally permissible if and only if certain criteria (the just war principles) are met. The unit is structured as follows:

• Week 1: Introduction
• Week 2: Principles of Just War Theory
• Week 3: Humanitarian Intervention
• Week 4: Discrimination
• Week 5: Collateral Damage
• Week 6: Torture
• Week 7: Mercenaries
• Week 8: Nuclear Weapons & Immoral Means
• Week 9: No classes (reading week)
• Week 10: Terrorism
• Week 11: After War
• Week 12: Pacifism

I found the content in basically all of the weeks particularly interesting. I stopped doing the readings from about Week 5 until about Week 11, but made them up during SWOTVAC. The reason for this was that I thought they might come up on the exam; I expected it to be sort of like the exam for The Human Body and the International Marketplace, if anybody has done that unit. But the exam focused exclusively on the readings from the final three weeks (Paul did mention something about this during the semester, but I thought it was more of an emphasis on those weeks rather than only those weeks being examined). So I wasted a fair bit of time preparing for content that I didn't need to know, but the exam otherwise was okay. It was structured as three extended response - not essay - questions.

The other assessments were fairly straight forward. Paul goes to great lengths to be clear in what he wants and expects in the assessment tasks. The first two are based on a reading from outside the prescribed readings, but relevant to a particular week or weeks. And then you can choose your major essay topic from a decent range. I agreed with practically all of the feedback that I received for these tasks, and the feedback was great in amount.

In the tutorials, we split up into small groups to discuss various hypothetical and real scenarios, debating the morality of various means. I don't like group work at the best of times, but this wasn't too bad. Paul is extremely approachable and always happy to help, but I can't see much about the other tutors because I never had them.

Overall, I would recommend the unit. I had an okay background in Philosophy before this unit (having done three other Philosophy units off the top of my head), but a very limited background in the content itself. The unit caters for everybody, really.
4/5, would unit again.

Paul Daniels.

No idea.

4 out of 5

I got by with just the reader. There are other recommended readings, but Paul mostly provided those for keen students (I never bothered). You could probably complete the first two assessment tasks without even the reader, but not to a particularly high standard; the background reading is what makes them fairly straight forward. So yeah, get the reader, but don't feel like you need to get anything else.

2015, Semester 1.

N/A

Firstly, the unit is very coordinated quite well. It's the first time Bob has ran the subject and to my understanding it has undergone some structural changes which I'm going to assume were positive ones, as I thought the structure of the unit was very well thought out. The first nine weeks are on 'Just War Theory', and the last three weeks examine a possible addition to JWT, and two criticisms or, more appropriately, 'alternatives' to JWT. Bob is also a habitual email checker (or at least, he's responded to me quite quickly whenever I've contacted him). He's also really receptive to feedback about the unit. He made a strange decision with regards to the assessment that I spoke to him about for a good 20-25 minutes and afterwards he said he'd change things around, which I find to be pretty awesome.

Bob as a lecturer is also fantastic. Not that it ever mattered to me, but he's insanely fast at uploading the lecture slides after a lecture - like, I think it's the very first thing he does after a lecture. He also has a really awesome way of presenting the material. He couldn't make you understand it more if he shot you with bullets full of understanding. He's not over the top humorous or extravagant or particularly "quirky" in the ways that might make for a "good" lecturer. Rather, he gets down to the juicy bits of the material and delivers in a really genuine, relatable way. He actually does have an awesome sense of humour though, people just don't seem to laugh. I think they don't laugh out of respect or not wanting to interrupt or something, or they're just too silly to see the subtle jokes, but I personally pmsl every lecture I attend haha.

Ron G was my tutor. A man certainly not to be underestimated. To be honest, he seems a bit loose in the head for the first tutorial because of his eccentricities but the man is crazy smart. He's actually got a PhD in Lit, and another one in Philosophy, so never make the mistake of thinking he won't pick up on a dodgy you're trying to pull on an assignment. He sees all the dodgies. Really nice guy, great tutor, fair marker, fiercely rational fellow.

The exams is really easy. I think Bob constructs "easy" exams because it makes more pedagogical sense. Just the last three weeks are examinable, and the exam is three short-answer questions in two hours (average of 300 words each, although they're weighted differently). Bob also gave 5 revision questions for each topic which served for excellent night-before revision.

I feel like the article analyses could have been more specifically targeted in the content (re: basic comprehension questions). Probably a bit boring but I actually feel like these type of assignments really cement the material in my head, whereas you can get away with a 'theoretical' understanding of the course without a hyper-detailed knowledge of its nuances when doing the article analyses. That said, they were actually really interesting/different assignments (and a tiny bit of extra reading, supplied by Bob). There was also a weird feature which meant that our second analysis was handed in before he got our marks for the first one. This is what I spoke to Bob about and what he agreed to change (despite having good reasons for having it the way it was). This paragraph is essentially the only real "issues" I have with the unit.

Call me psycho, but another 30 or 60 minutes of lectures with Bob would also be great -- not that he ever needed to skip anything, but sometimes more time just really cements things.

Oh yeah, and, some of the readings are fucking enormous.

Overall, really well designed, well taught unit. I would recommend enrolling in the third year unit code on moodle as there is virtually no difference - you just need to use an external source for your essay in third year (used one in second year anyway). It can also credit a whole range of AoS, Phi, Politics, etc etc. Would recommend this unit.

P.S: an awesome quote from Bob...

"Under standard Just War Theory, that's true, even if what the war gives way to is some sort of disasterous... umm... I keep wanting to use the word cluster-eff, because that just seems to be the word that comes to my lips when I talk about Libya, but I'll refrain from using that because it is a little bit gratuitously rude."

No, but unnecessary.

4.23 out of 5

The unit reader is highly recommended. To be honest, you don't need it for the article analyses, but they would be difficult to do without a grasp of the content. Even for the essay + exam, you could feasibly find the journal articles on a database. So, whilst not technically necessary in the literal sense of the word, I would really, really get it.

Just and Unjust Wars would be an excellent secondary source for an essay, but it's completely unnecessary. I should score an HD for the unit and didn't use it all semester.

TBA