12 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Alex J. Bellamy [10]Alex Bellamy [2]
  1. Alex J. Bellamy (2012). Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity. Oup Oxford.
    Starting with the French Revolution Massacres and Morality studies mass killing as perpetrated by states. In particular it examines the role that civilian immunity has played in shaping the behaviour of perpetrators and how international society has responded.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Alex J. Bellamy (2011). Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm. Ethics and International Affairs 25 (3):263-269.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Alex J. Bellamy (2010). The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On. Ethics and International Affairs 24 (2):143-169.
    The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has become a prominent feature in international debates about preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities. Since its adoption in 2005, it has been discussed in relation to a dozen major crises and been the subject of discussion at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. This article takes stock of the past five years and examines three questions about RtoP: What is its function? Is it a norm, and, if so, what sort? And (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Sridhar Venkatapuram, Yvonne Terlingen, Alex J. Bellamy, Shareen Hertel, Democracy Deterrence & Leslie Vinjamuri (2010). Carnegie Council. Ethics and International Affairs 24.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Alex J. Bellamy (2009). When is It Right to Fight? International Law and Jus Ad Bellum. Journal of Military Ethics 8 (3):231-245.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Alex Bellamy (2008). The Ethics of Terror Bombing: Beyond Supreme Emergency. Journal of Military Ethics 7 (1):41-65.
    Recent years have seen a revival of interest in Michael Walzer's doctrine of ?supreme emergency?. Simply put, the doctrine holds that, when a state confronts an opponent who threatens annihilation, it can be morally legitimate to violate one of the cardinal rules of the war convention ? the principle of non-combatant immunity. Walzer cites the case of Britain's decision to bomb German cities in 1940 as a case in point. Although the theory of supreme emergency has been scrutinised, the historical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Alex J. Bellamy (2007). Editor's Introduction. Journal of Military Ethics 6 (2):89-90.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Alex J. Bellamy (2006). Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Polity Press.
    In what circumstances is it legitimate to use force? How should force be used? These are two of the most crucial questions confronting world politics today. The Just War tradition provides a set of criteria which political leaders and soldiers use to defend and rationalize war. This book explores the evolution of thinking about just wars and examines its role in shaping contemporary judgements about the use of force, from grand strategic issues of whether states have a right to pre-emptive (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Alex J. Bellamy (2006). Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs 20 (2):143–169.
    At the 2005 World Summit, the world's leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. 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.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. 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.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Alex J. Bellamy (2004). Motives, Outcomes, Intent and the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):216-232.
    During the 1990s, international society increasingly recognised that states who abuse their citizens in the most egregious ways ought to lose their sovereign inviolability and be subject to humanitarian intervention. The emergence of this norm has given renewed significance to the debate concerning what it is about humanitarian intervention that makes it legitimate. The most popular view is that it is humanitarian motivations that legitimise intervention. Others insist that humanitarian outcomes are more important that an actor's motivations, pointing for instance (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation