Abstract

Humanitarian intervention without authorisation from the UN Security Council is considered illegal by most, though not all, international lawyers. This does not mean, however, that states or regional security organisations like NATO are always prepared to abide by international law when faced with humanitarian disasters in the absence of Security Council authorisation. Many would argue that under certain circumstances humanitarian interventions can be justified on purely moral grounds in those cases. The author of this article discusses the moral justifications of humanitarian interventions that have been given by Walzer, Rawls, Kersting and Te´son.He argues that Walzer does not succeed in providing a clear criterion on the basis of which it can be decided when a humanitarian intervention is called for. Rawls does provide a clear criterion,but does not convincingly show why this norm would be acceptable to liberal or decent peoples or to those living in outlaw states.Kerstings non-liberal cosmopolitanism succeeds in defending humanitarian interventions in the case of violations of ‘existential rights’, but the implication of his argument seems to be that the international community is to remain passive in the case of violations of liberal or social rights. Te´son claims to defend a liberal cosmopolitan position, but fails to show why a liberal would justify humanitarian interventions only in the case of violations of basic human rights like the right to life