Legitimacy, humanitarian intervention, and international institutions
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (1):20-45 (2011)
| Abstract | The legitimacy of humanitarian intervention has been contested for more than a century, yet pressure for such intervention persists. Normative evolution and institutional design have been closely linked since the first debates over humanitarian intervention more than a century ago. Three norms have competed in shaping state practice and the normative discourse: human rights, peace preservation, and sovereignty. The rebalancing of these norms over time, most recently as the state’s responsibility to protect, has reflected specific international institutional environments. The contemporary legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is based on UN Security Council authorization of the use of force. Although the Security Council is often viewed as representative of great-power influence, international acceptance of its role is based on the role of non-permanent members and their support for the sovereignty norm. The current rebalanced norms supporting humanitarian intervention, institutional bias that protects state sovereignty, and the changing character of mass violence may undermine the tenuous contemporary legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Normative adjustments and new institutional designs are required to insure the legitimacy of international action that protects populations against mass violence | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPatrick Macklem (2008). Humanitarian Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in International Law. Ethics and International Affairs 22 (4):369-393.
Jennifer Szende (2012). Selective Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Reason and Collective Agents. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):63-76.
James Pattison (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect: Who Should Intervene? OUP Oxford.
Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
Fernando R. Tesón (2011). Humanitarian Intervention: Loose Ends. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):192-212.
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.
Steven P. Lee (2010). Humanitarian Intervention - Eight Theories. Diametros 23:22-43.
Ned Dobos (2010). On Altruistic War and National Responsibility: Justifying Humanitarian Intervention to Soldiers and Taxpayers. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1).
Jeff McMahan (2009). Humanitarian Intervention, Consent, and Proportionality. In N. Ann Davis, Richard Keshen & Jeff McMahan (eds.), Ethics and Humanity: Themes From the Philosophy of Jonathan Glover. Oxford University Press.
Clifford Orwin (2006). Humanitarian Military Intervention: Wars for the End of History? Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):196-217.
James Turner Johnson (2013). Religion, Violence, and Human Rights. Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):1-14.
Harry van der Linden (2006). The Left and Humanitarian Intervention as Solidarity. Radical Philosophy Today 3:111-127.
Marcus Arvan (2009). In Defense of Discretionary Association Theories of Political Legitimacy: Reply to Buchanan. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-30Total downloads80 ( #9,693 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
