Muslim Governance and the Duty to Protect

Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):15-19 (2013)

Abstract

In this response to Johnson, Oh reaffirms the scholarly vision of Kelsay and Twiss, elaborates upon Muslim perspectives on human rights, and questions the emphasis on violent humanitarian interventions as part of the Responsibility to Protect mandate. Oh suggests that, in light of the historical relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim states and the aftermath of the second Iraq War, more consideration be given to the rebuilding of Muslim-majority societies. Oh also highlights the concept of duty as a religiously based ideal to which governments of Muslim nations ought to be held

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,879

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-01-28

Downloads
22 (#518,797)

6 months
1 (#386,016)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Religion, Violence, and Human Rights.James Turner Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):1-14.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of the Responsibility to Protect.Luke Glanville - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (1):169-182.
International Ethics Codes and the Duty to Protect.Mark M. Leach - 2009 - In James L. Werth, Elizabeth Reynolds Welfel & G. Andrew H. Benjamin (eds.), The Duty to Protect: Ethical, Legal, and Professional Considerations for Mental Health Professionals. American Psychological Association.