Ethique et politique de l'intervention humanitaire armee

In: Critique internationale: revue comparative de sciences sociales, Heft 2, S. 161-182

Abstract

Armed humanitarian intervention, also covered by the concepts of "right" or "duty to interfere" & "duty to protect," is a military intervention in foreign territory that aims to put a stop to serious & widespread human rights violations. This practice being defined according to its aim, in order to be humanitarian, armed intervention depends entirely on the "rightful intention" of the intervening state, a rationale that tends to underestimate the weight of politics in the ethics of intervention. But to what extent, & how far, should the intervening state be disinterested? This article sets out first of all to offer a realist critique of the traditional criterion of "rightful intention" & suggests that the "disinterested" requirement of the intervening state be discarded. It then examines the case of Iraq, wondering whether it can be considered as a humanitarian intervention. It goes on to reconstruct a pragmatic & essentially consequentialist ethic of humanitarian intervention without the "rightful intention" criterion, but based on a dual evaluation that would avoid or at least limit the use of the humanitarian label as a pretext. Adapted from the source document.