A few words on mill, Walzer, and nonintervention

Ethics and International Affairs 23 (4):349-369 (2009)
Abstract
Nonintervention has been a particularly important and occasionally disturbing principle for liberal scholars, such as John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer, who share a commitment to basic and universal human rights. On the one hand, liberals have provided some of the strongest reasons to abide by a strict form of the nonintervention doctrine. It was only with the security of national borders that peoples could work out the capacity to govern themselves as free citizens. On the other hand, those very same principles of universal human dignity when applied in different contexts have provided justifications for overriding or disregarding the principle of nonintervention. In explaining this dual logic I present an interpretive summary of Mill's famous argument against and for intervention, presented in his "A Few Words on Non-Intervention" (1859), that illustrates what makes Mill's "few words" both so attractive and alarming to us. We should be drawn to Mill's arguments because he is among the first to address the conundrums of modern intervention. The modern conscience tries simultaneously to adhere to three contradictory principles: first, the cosmopolitan, humanitarian commitment to assistance, irrespective of international borders; second, respect for the significance of communitarian, national self-determination; and, third, accommodation to the reality of international anarchy, which puts a premium on self-help national security. I stress, more than has been conventional, the consequentialist character of the ethics of both nonintervention and intervention. Comparing Mill's "Non-Intervention" and Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977) links two classic statements on just wars of intervention. I conclude that interventionist arguments should go beyond the three paradigmatic cases Walzer explores in Just and Unjust Wars . But while they can draw on Mill's "Non-Intervention," they need to offer a more convincing set of criteria for when such interventions are likely to do more good than harm.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2009.00228.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,781
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in Libya.James Pattison - 2011 - Ethics and International Affairs 25 (3):271-277.
Reconciling Just Causes for Armed Humanitarian Intervention.Eamon Aloyo - forthcoming - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-16.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Getting Mill Right.Deni Elliott - 2007 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (2 & 3):100 – 112.
Rules and Their Reasons: Mill on Morality and Instrumental Rationality.Ben Eggleston - 2011 - In Ben Eggleston, Dale E. Miller & David Weinstein (eds.), John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life. Oxford University Press. pp. 71-93.
Mill on Liberty.Ted Honderich - 1967 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 10 (1-4):292 – 297.
The Moral Standing of States Revisited.Charles R. Beitz - 2009 - Ethics and International Affairs 23 (4):325-347.
Added to PP index
2010-01-05

Total downloads
68 ( #80,220 of 2,199,753 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,206 of 2,199,753 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature