|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experiment 1: Legitimacy of the Iraq Invasion Introduction to the debate
The decision by the United States and a number of allies (including the UK and Australia) to militarily remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in March-April 2003 provoked one of the most heated and complex public policy debates in recent times. The debate continues to the present day as more information bearing on the war's original justification becomes available and the focus shifts to the appropriate policy for post-war Iraq. Innumerable arguments and considerations have been invoked in the different arenas where the debate has been conducted (parliamentary/congressional debates, various branches of academia, the media, the vernacular public debate) bearing on the legality, morality and prudence of the war.
The positions taken by participants almost invariable depend (either implicitly or explicitly) on some larger framework of analysis that determines the weight or relevance accorded to different considerations. This may be a comprehensive theory about the justification for war (such as traditional Just War Theory), or a distinctive ethical theory (such as Consequentialism), or a perspective shaped within a particular academic discipline (e.g. the Realist/Constructivist/Liberalist debate amongst international relations scholars) - or just a collection of prejudices.
Ideally, we would like to develop an integrated overview of substantial parts of the debate, making reference to a representative selection of sources (textual and other media) in which the arguments are expressed.
|