Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Military Ethics 5 (2):144-160 (2006)
|Abstract||This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of humanitarian intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed|
|Keywords||Darfur UN Security Council Humanitarian intervention 750701 Understanding international relations 360105 International Relations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ned Dobos (2010). Is U.N. Security Council Authorisation for Armed Humanitarian Intervention Morally Necessary? Philosophia 38 (3):499-515.
M. Kahler (2011). Legitimacy, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Institutions. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (1):20-45.
Alex J. Bellamy (2005). Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention After Iraq. Ethics and International Affairs 19 (2):31–54.
Steven P. Lee (2010). Humanitarian Intervention - Eight Theories. Diametros 23:22-43.
Deane-Peter Baker & James Pattison (2011). The Principled Case for Employing Private Military and Security Companies in Interventions for Human Rights Purposes. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (1):1-18.
James Pattison (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect: Who Should Intervene? OUP Oxford.
Patrick Macklem (2008). Humanitarian Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in International Law. Ethics and International Affairs 22 (4):369-393.
Clifford Orwin (2006). Humanitarian Military Intervention: Wars for the End of History? Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):196-217.
Jennifer Szende (2012). Selective Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Reason and Collective Agents. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):63-76.
Michael N. Schmitt * (2004). The Legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom Under International Law. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):82-104.
Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
José-Antonio Orosco (2010). Defending the Great Community: Royce's Concept of Humanitarian Intervention. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (2):266-281.
Harry van der Linden (2006). The Left and Humanitarian Intervention as Solidarity. Radical Philosophy Today 3:111-127.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads22 ( #62,772 of 739,370 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,370 )
How can I increase my downloads?