Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):192-212 (2011)
|Abstract||Abstract The article addresses three aspects of the humanitarian intervention doctrine. It argues, first, that the value of sovereignty rests on the justified social processes of the target state ? the horizontal contract. Foreign interventions, even when otherwise justified, must respect the horizontal contract. In contrast, morally objectionable social processes (such as the subjection of women) are not protected by sovereignty (intervention, of course, may be banned for other reasons). In addition, tyrants have no moral protection against interventions directed at them. Second, the article addresses the internal legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. It concludes that the liberal state may only use voluntary soldiers (either the voluntary army or mercenaries) to conduct humanitarian intervention. Conscription for that purpose is not permissible. The article shows that the long-standing criticism of mercenaries stems from a romantic prejudice and is thus unfair. Third, the article makes a distinction between intention (the determination to perform an action) and motive (a further goal that the agent seeks with that action) and shows that only intention is relevant for humanitarian intervention. A justified humanitarian intervention requires the intention to liberate the victims, but not necessarily a good further motive. It shows how mainstream doctrine has impermissibly confused the two concepts|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jennifer Szende (2012). Selective Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Reason and Collective Agents. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):63-76.
Steven P. Lee (2010). Humanitarian Intervention - Eight Theories. Diametros 23:22-43.
Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
M. Kahler (2011). Legitimacy, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Institutions. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (1):20-45.
Richard B. Miller (2000). Humanitarian Intervention, Altruism, and the Limits of Casuistry. Journal of Religious Ethics 28 (1):3 - 35.
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.
Ned Dobos (2010). A State to Call Their Own: Insurrection, Intervention, and the Communal Integrity Thesis. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (1):26-38.
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.
Harry van der Linden (2006). The Left and Humanitarian Intervention as Solidarity. Radical Philosophy Today 3:111-127.
Ned Dobos (2010). Is U.N. Security Council Authorisation for Armed Humanitarian Intervention Morally Necessary? Philosophia 38 (3):499-515.
Eric A. Heinze (2005). Commonsense Morality and the Consequentialist Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 4 (3):168-182.
Jovana Davidovic (2008). Are Humanitarian Military Interventions Obligatory? Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2):134–144.
Added to index2011-09-25
Total downloads46 ( #28,138 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,384 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?