Suchergebnisse

In soliciting these articles, the editors of Ethics & International Affairs asked authors to respond to several questions. First, preemptive and preventive uses of force are often justified by claiming either that there is substantial risk of a future attack or that it is difficult to ascertain how dangerous the target is. Under what conditions does the existence of risk and uncertainty about possible threats license the use of military force? Second, what consultative procedures should be required in order to legitimate the preventive or preemptive use of force? There exist both domestic and international institutions that constrain the use of military force, but which, if any, should be granted authority to block or authorize military actions of these kinds? Third, if preemptive or preventive military action is taken, what jus in bello criteria apply? Are there different and perhaps more stringent jus in bello criteria if states act preemptively?

Introduction explaining the theme and purpose of this edition of Ethics & International Affairs. The editor focuses on what constitutes preemption & preventive war so as to discern one of the greatest ethical questions in international relations: whether a country is defending itself or committing aggression.

A review essay on books by (1) Michael Barnett, Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda (Ithaca, NY: Cornell U Press, 2002); (2) Bruce D. Jones, Peacemaking in Rwanda: The Dynamics of Failure (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001); & (3) L. R. Melvern, A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide (London: Zed Books, 2000). These three books on the genocide in Rwanda examine the failure of the UN, the US, & the international community to intervene in the atrocities. Jones's largely insightful book argues for the UN's responsibility, although Jones does not fully explicate his reasons. Melvern's book considers the particular failure of UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali to disseminate key information about Rwanda's crisis to other member-states, although the author is not altogether persuasive in mitigating the latter's share of the responsibility. Barnett's book is theoretically grounded in a number of social science disciplines, & strongly indicts the UN's organizational & bureaucratic culture for the failure to intervene. K. Coddon