Responsibility to protect or trojan horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after iraq
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and International Affairs 19 (2):31–54 (2005)
What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments
|Keywords||360100 Political Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
James Pattison (2007). Humanitarian Intervention and International Law: The Moral Importance of an Intervener's Legal Status. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10 (3):301-319.
Mathias Thaler (2014). Political Imagination and the Crime of Crimes: Coming to Terms with 'Genocide' and 'Genocide Blindness'. Contemporary Political Theory 13 (4):358-379.
Similar books and articles
Jennifer Szende (2012). Selective Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Reason and Collective Agents. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):63-76.
Clifford Orwin (2006). Humanitarian Military Intervention: Wars for the End of History? Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):196-217.
Alex J. Bellamy (2006). Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs 20 (2):143–169.
Steven P. Lee (2010). Humanitarian Intervention - Eight Theories. Diametros 23:22-43.
Alex Bellamy & Paul Williams (2006). The UN Security Council and the Question of Humanitarian Intervention in Darfur. Journal of Military Ethics 5 (2):144-160.
Dorota Gierycz (2010). From Humanitarian Intervention (HI) to Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Criminal Justice Ethics 29 (2):110-128.
James Pattison (2008). Whose Responsibility to Protect? The Duties of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 7 (4):262-283.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads305 ( #1,218 of 1,101,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #28,656 of 1,101,746 )
How can I increase my downloads?