Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1. The Theory and Practice of Nonviolent Political Action -- 2. Political Theory, Violence and the State -- 3. Nonviolence, the State and Civil Resistance -- 4. Nonviolence and Political Power -- 5. Structure, Agency and Nonviolent Political Action -- 6. Pacifism and Nonviolence -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Index

1.Introduction --pt. I.International politics and the morality of peace and war --2.Political realism and state violence --3.Internationalism and the rule of law --4.Cosmopolitanism and armed conflict --pt. II.Ethical approaches to peace and war --5.Just war and the state --6.The politics of pacifism --pt. III.Cosmopolitan strategies --7.Post-modern war --8.Human security, human rights and human development --9.Humanitarian intervention, cosmopolitanism and pacifism --10.Peacebuilding and international conflict management --11.Conclusion.

Armed humanitarian intervention, or the use of military force to protect the fundamental human rights of the citizens of another state, has become increasingly prominent in debates about the role of ethics in international affairs. Ethical objections to such intervention focus on two issues in particular: the violation of national sovereignty and the use of armed force with the concomitant loss of life and human suffering entailed. Some proponents of humanitarian intervention argue that if intervention occurs in accordance with international law, its threat to both state sovereignty and human life will be minimized. However, the requirement of UN Security Council authorization has become increasingly difficult to satisfy. International humanitarian intervention to stop gross human rights abuses can perhaps be supported as the fulfilment of the just cause criterion of just war theory. The danger inherent in this sort of argument is that it implies a conflict between legality and morality that weakens the already precarious jurisdiction of international law. The anti-militarist or pacifist critique of armed humanitarian intervention, with its focus on a non-consequentialist approach to the value of human life and its concern with processes of militarization, provides a further normative challenge to armed humanitarian intervention.

Pacifism is often interpreted as an absolute moral position that claims it is always wrong to go to war. As such, it is often rejected on the grounds that it excludes or overlooks other moral considerations, such as an obligation to resist aggression or defend fundamental human rights. Vocational pacifism, restricted to those who choose nonviolence as a way of life, is one version of pacifism that might overcome some of the objections connected to its moral absolutism. Contingent pacifism, on the other hand, acknowledges the complexities of moral reasoning connected to decisions concerning the use of armed force while retaining pacifist objections to war and preparations for war. Even contingent pacifism is limited by its individualism or voluntarism as a moral position, however. War resistance contributes its analysis of the political or structural factors responsible for war or preparations for war while retaining pacifism's moral impetus for action.

Pacifism is often interpreted as an absolute moral position that claims it is always wrong to go to war. As such, it is often rejected on the grounds that it excludes or overlooks other moral considerations, such as an obligation to resist aggression or defend fundamental human rights. Vocational pacifism, restricted to those who choose nonviolence as a way of life, is one version of pacifism that might overcome some of the objections connected to its moral absolutism. Contingent pacifism, on the other hand, acknowledges the complexities of moral reasoning connected to decisions concerning the use of armed force while retaining pacifist objections to war & preparations for war. Even contingent pacifism is limited by its individualism or voluntarism as a moral position, however. War resistance contributes its analysis of the political or structural factors responsible for war or preparations for war while retaining pacifism's moral impetus for action. Adapted from the source document.