International chastisement of a nation's unacceptable behavior is often dealt with by imposing sanctions, the late-20th-century version of "gun boat diplomacy." However, little account appears to be taken of the devastating humanitarian impact that sanctions can have on the innocent victims of their government's policies. This article considers the ethical implications of sanctions, using as an example the UN sanctions against Iraq. The possibility of just sanctions is discussed against the background of just war criteria, & questions are raised regarding the assumption that sanctions are a safe & reasonable alternative to conflict. Adapted from the source document.
The first French missiles that streaked over Benghan in March were more than the beginning of the end for Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi -- they were also the first real world test of the international community's new rules for humanitarian intervention: "responsibility to protect" (R2P). This article examines a history of countries engaging in conflict in the name of human rights. Adapted from the source document.
A review essay on a book by Carl Schmitt, Das international-rechtliche Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges und der Grundsatz "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" ([The International-Legal Crime of Military Aggression and the Principle "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege"] Quaritsch, Helmut [Ed], Berlin, Federal Republic Germany: Duncker & Humblot, 1994). This work is a comprehensive legal opinion written in 1945 war-ravaged Berlin, Germany, on the criminality of aggressive wars & the possibility of indicting industrialists as well as military & political leaders. Though unpublished for 50+ years, until Helmut Quaritsch retrieved it from Schmitt's estate, the document stands in the history of law on aggressive wars from the Nuremberg (Germany) & Tokyo (Japan) trials to recent UN deliberations concerning war in the Balkans. Schmitt traced the origin of the modern criminalization of aggression to a letter dated 10 Dec 1914 by Andrew Carnegie to the Trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, in which he announced a gift of money to go toward the eradication of war. In making his argument that any use of power was criminal, Carnegie appealed to a tradition dating back to the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages. Schmitt defended the notion that aggressive wars were not in themselves criminal & had never been defined as such in international law. While he conceded that systematic killings & human killings ought to be criminalized, Schmitt argued that ordinary citizens participating in the prescribed activities of an aggressive war should not be labeled criminals. This opinion was not used in the Nuremberg trials, but it may form a proper basis for adjudicating issues of war & peace in the post-Cold War world. D. M. Smith
