Suchergebnisse

After denying Russian intervention in Crimea, President Putin ultimately recognized that it indeed happened and then used fallacious arguments to justify it. In contradiction to what Russian propaganda purports - disseminated by different extreme-right parties in Western Europe - the de facto annexation is illegal and comparisons with Kosovo are unfounded. A year after its fait accompli in Crimea, the Kremlin is pursuing its strategy of carving up Ukraine. Adapted from the source document.

At the end of 'the summer of all crises', which concentrate most of the symptoms of world disorder (Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, the Sahel, Libya, Israel/Palestine, China Sea, Ebola) and testified to the state kind of Hobbesian in which international relations appear back, the publication of the last book in early September Kissinger could not be timelier. Adapted from the source document.

Armed drones are regarded as illegal in the eyes of international humanitarian law. In reality, they are simply new instruments of war, operated at greater distance from the opponent and which permit more discriminating attacks than traditional arms. Their increasing autonomy raises many questions which must be taken into account by new international regulations. Adapted from the source document.

There is a widespread agreement that any military intervention, even when justified on humanitarian grounds, should be conducted "as a last resort". But what is last resort? This article highlights the epistemological problems in this classic criterion of the just war doctrine, which is also counter-intuitive when facing a humanitarian emergency: exhausting all other measures, isn't that losing precious time? This criterion is also problematic in that it implies that the use of military force is always the worst option, which is not necessarily the case. This article corrects and reformulates the principle of last resort into one of the least bad option, within the framework of a realist ethics of the lesser evil. Adapted from the source document.

In general, the humanitarian justification for military intervention adopts the criteria of traditional just war doctrine: just cause, legitimate authority, good intentions, positive effect, last recourse and proportionality. There are at least three ways of approaching the first of these criteria, that of just cause. Some authors formulate it in terms of rights: since humanitarian intervention is defined as aiming to prevent or put an end to massive violations of human rights, determining the just cause is ultimately a matter of stating what rights are in question. Most authors formulate this in terms of acts of violence: they prepare a list of crimes that in their view constitute just causes of intervention. The third approach consists of phrasing the question in terms of harm, without necessarily specifying what rights have been violated or what crimes have caused harm. This position falls within the framework of a consequentialist perspective. Adapted from the source document.

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.