Description
This essay assignment is for my POLS/GOVT 118 (Just War, Natural Rights, and the Law of Nations) class. So PLEASE assign this to one who knows the subject well.
Please, read Vitoria’s Essay (Attached) very carefully, and understand his argument clearly. Once you finished reading it then pick only ONE question (Attached) that you can provide the BEST response to.
Remember that is not an English writing class essay, this is a Political Science Essay that the professor wants to make sure that we read and have a clear understanding of the text. Therefore, as you write your response to one of the questions, please show that you understand Vitoria’s argument and use Quotes and cite as many as you can provide a clear answer/response to the question.
Note: Just ONE source needed for this assignment that I attached for you, so please don’t use outside sources!
As I mentioned earlier, please read it and then look at the questions (attached) and then pick the one you can provide the BEST response to with QUOTES and CITATIONS.
1. Vitoria starts his essay on the Native Americans arguing whether he has the right to question Spain’s policy in the Americas. Why is it questionable for him to ask if the acts of the King and Queen of Spain are just? What is at stake in this? Why is it important? Looking at the preliminaries, as well as the first article of Question 2 and the conclusion of his essay in particular, what is he saying about the political authorities of his day? (Preliminaries, Q. 2 Art.1, Conclusion)
2. One of the claims made by other legal authorities is that the ‘Barbarians’ have no title to their own lands because they are not Christians. What are the arguments they make? Why would Christians have rights over the lands of non-Christians? What are the arguments by which Vitoria denies this? (Q. 1 Art. 1-3, Q. 2 Art. 2, Art. 4, Art. 7; Q. 3 Art. 2, 3, 4)
3. Many of the authorities of Vitoria’s day claim the ‘Barbarians’ should be ruled over and colonized because they lack reason. Is it true that some people need to be ruled over by others for their own good, like children or madmen? Why do some people argue this applies to the colonized peoples? Does Vitoria offer a reasonable argument against this? A persuasive one? (Q. 1 Art. 4-6, Conclusion; Q. 3, Art. 8)
4. Vitoria lists 8 Unjust titles which are claimed to justify the Spanish conquest of the New World. Among these are claims that Europeans have the right to rule over and judge ‘barbarians’ for their sins. What does he mean by sins? What is wrong with the claim in his view? Is he right? Today we talk about claims such as ‘genocide’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, and ‘human rights violations’, and often suggest international intervention by Western countries or organizations they dominate. Do such efforts rest on similar arguments to the ones Vitoria critiques? Do they differ? Do his arguments against them apply as they do against Spain in his day?(Q. 2 Art. 7)
5. Vitoria suggests there are many Just Titles that would allow the Spanish to legitimize their use of force against indigenous people. These titles include rights that the Spanish have to travel and trade—what were known as ‘cosmopolitan rights’—the right to travel and trade. What does he think is a right humans have? How far does it give the Spanish the right to insist on being in the Americas? What right do the indigenous people have against the Spanish, and how far can the Spanish use force to insist on this right? What do you think of his argument here? (Q. 3, Art. 1)
6. One of the titles that Vitoria considers is that people may consent to a new rule. He considers this under both unjust and just titles. What are the conditions of legitimate consent that he suggests? Why are they necessary? When would contracts not be legitimate according to him? Are contacts and agreements ever truly legitimate between people or states of unequal powers? (Q.2 Art 5, Q. 3 Art. 6-7)