Suchergebnisse

Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. All are examples where humanitarian intervention has been called into action. This timely and important new volume explores the legal and moral issues which emerge when a state uses military force in order to protect innocent people from violence perpetrated or permitted by the government of that state. Humanitarian intervention can be seen as a moral duty to protect but it is also subject to misuse as a front for imperialism without regard to international law.In Humanitarian Intervention, the contributors explore the many questions surrounding the issue. Is humanitarian intervention permitted by international law? If not, is it nevertheless morally permissible or morally required? Realistically, might not the main consequence of the humanitarian intervention principle be that powerful states will coerce weak ones for purposes of their own? The current debate is updated by two innovations in particular, the first being the shift of emphasis from the permissibility of intervening to the responsibility to intervene, and the second an emerging conviction that the response to humanitarian crises needs to be collective, coordinated, and preemptive. The authors shed light on the timely debate of when and how to intervene and when, if ever, not to.Contributors: Carla Bagnoli, Joseph Boyle, Anthony Coates, Thomas Franck, Brian D. Lepard, Catherine Lu, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Terry Nardin, Thomas Pogge, Melissa S. Williams, and Kok-Chor Tan

In this essay, I offer a utilitarian perspective on humanitarian
intervention. There is no generally accepted precise definition of the term
'humanitarian intervention'. I will provisionally, and roughly,
define humanitarian intervention as the use of force by a state, beyond its
own borders, that has as a purpose or an effect the protection of the human
rights of noncitizens or the reduction of the suffering of noncitizens.

Although the currently dominant concept of humanitarian intervention has a long history, it is also distinctive in several crucial respects. This article analyzes its nature, historical specificity and presuppositions. It argues that the concept of humanitarian intervention is logically unstable in the sense that it both presupposes and seeks to go beyond the statist manner of thinking which has dominated political life for the past three centuries. The article exposes the incoherence of the statist paradigm and concludes by arguing that, although humanitarian intervention is justified under certain circumstances, it is too limited, too late and too superficial to be of lasting value, and needs to be embedded in and undertaken as part of a larger project of creating a just and non-statist global order.

Government-sanctioned mass killings in Kampuchea and Uganda in recent years argue forcefully for military intervention on humanitarian grounds. While international law does permit such intervention in special circumstances, there remains the need to devise satisfactory procedures for carrying out this intervention as well as effective international mechanisms to ensure that it is not used to promote a nation's own self-interest.

Humanitarianism as a concept is arguably as old as humanity itself. To help one's fellow man in their time of need irrespective of race, religion, caste, or creed has been preached by innumerable ideologies. Despite being such a universally understood concept, in recent decades humanitarianism, has faced increased conflation with 'humanitarian intervention'. This paper seeks to discern the differences between humanitarianism and humanitarian intervention and will do so by examining the ideological and foundational differences between the two concepts. The two concepts despite sounding similar are fundamentally different; they involve different actors and have different objectives. This paper will distinguish between state and non- state actors and the different humanitarian roles, values, and interests they have. This paper will posit that states that engage in military interventions are not humanitarians and that the conflation of such actions with those of impartial non-state actors are highly damaging to the ideals and values of humanitarianism.