David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and International Affairs 22 (4):369-393 (2008)
Legal debates about humanitarian intervention—military intervention by one or more states to curb gross human rights violations occurring in another state—tend to assume that its legitimacy is irrelevant to its legality. Debates among philosophers and political theorists often assume the inverse, that the legality of humanitarian intervention is irrelevant to its legitimacy. This paper defends an alternative account, one that sees the legality and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention as intertwined. This account emerges from a conception of international law as a legal domain that structures global politics by treating sovereignty as a legal entitlement that it distributes among the multitude of legal actors that it recognizes as states. Drawing on a long standing debate among domestic legal theorists about the rule of law, it first identifies formal constraints on the UN Security Council's discretion to authorize the use of force to end human rights violations. Developing a distributive conception of international human rights, it then identifies substantive considerations that shed further light on the legality of intervention. It suggests that members of the Security Council must give reasons when exercising their discretion to authorize the use of force and that some reasons might divest a member's vote of legal validity.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
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.
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.
Michael N. Schmitt * (2004). The Legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom Under International Law. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):82-104.
Rory J. Conces (2001). Justifying Coercive and Non-Coercive Intervention: Strategic and Humanitarian Arguments. Acta Analytica 16 (27):133-52.
Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
Ned Dobos (2010). Is U.N. Security Council Authorisation for Armed Humanitarian Intervention Morally Necessary? Philosophia 38 (3):499-515.
Jennifer Szende (2012). Selective Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Reason and Collective Agents. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):63-76.
M. Kahler (2011). Legitimacy, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Institutions. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (1):20-45.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads75 ( #23,792 of 1,692,577 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #108,487 of 1,692,577 )
How can I increase my downloads?