Humanitarian Intervention: Closing the Gap Between Theory and Practice

2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
GILLIAN BROCK
2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
PÄRTEL PIIRIMÄE

This article attempts to establish a connection between the practical legitimation of war and the theories of international law, examining Sweden's efforts to justify her intervention in the Thirty Years War in 1630. Swedish argumentative strategy is analysed in the light of two major traditions of thinking about war: theological and humanist ‘just war’ traditions. The article argues that Swedish leaders did not appeal to the more belligerent humanist arguments which would have enabled them to describe their campaign as a just war either on the grounds of pre-emptive defence or humanitarian intervention. Instead, they tried to interpret it as being within the limits set by the more restrictive theological tradition. This strategy eventually forced them to relinquish attempts to present their intervention as a genuine war and to develop an argument of ‘police-action’, even though it resulted in a loss of credibility. The case study suggests that in the early seventeenth century the prevailing normative language of just war was that of the theologians.


2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 58-73
Author(s):  
Arseniy D. Kumankov

The article deals with the problem of moral justification of humanitarian intervention by modern just war theorists. At the beginning of the article, we discuss the evolution of the dominant paradigms of the moral justification of war and explain why the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention appears only at the present stage of the development of ethics and the law of war. It is noted that theorization of humanitarian intervention began in the last decades of the 20th century. This is due to a significant transformation, a retreat in the legal and ethical studies of war from the position of radical condemnation of aggressive actions and the recognition of the political subjectivity of non-state groups. Thus, there is a rethinking of the long tradition, the Westphalian system of international relations, according to which the state was recognized as the main participant of big politics, and its sovereign right to conduct domestic policy was considered indisputable. Further, we take the works of Michael Walzer as the main source of modern conceptualization of the ethics of humanitarian interventionism, since Walzer repeatedly addressed this topic and formulated a position on this issue that is representative of the entire modern Just War Theory. The arguments of Walzer and his supporters in favor of the moral justification of humanitarian intervention are considered. Among them are the following. First, the argument about the state as an organization which goal is to protect the rights of its own citizens. If this goal is not not achieved, the state shall loose its power over these people and in this territory. Second, Walzer calls for identifying governments and armed forces involved in mass murders as criminal and, therefore, deserving of punishment. Finally, there is, perhaps the most important, demonstrative argument: an appeal to the self-evident impossibility to stand aside in cases of mass violence in any state. This is followed by a critique of these arguments, as well as a demonstration of how the modern Just War Theory can respond to these criticisms.


1988 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 516-518
Author(s):  
Jeremy D. Safran

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 2156759X0500900
Author(s):  
Lonnie L. Rowell

Action research can be a valuable resource for strengthening the link between theory and practice in school counseling. Action research emphasizes practitioner action for change in conjunction with rigorous reflection on practice and careful gathering and analysis of data. This article presents background information on action research as well as the case for the relevance of action research to the situation that school counseling now faces as an emerging profession.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 222
Author(s):  
Tadelech Bubamo Welde ◽  
Baiq L. S. W. Wardhani

Since the end of the Cold War, thoughtlessness act in conducting ‘humanitarian interventions’ has posed analytical challenges for international relations academicians. Traditional security advocators have tried to distinguished implications of ‘humanitarianism’ based on their interest and how it helps state in regaining the outcome. This research identified motivation of state in conducting humanitarian intervention. There are growing studies, as expressed by the constructivist, that humanitarianism is states’ political weapon that shifted the involvement patterns of policymakers and actors in humanitarian interventions. On the other hand, primary criticism from realism stressed economic and political ambition behind humanitarian interventions and makes it impossible to be moral, ethical, and cosmopolitan. The objective of this study is to examine the practices, motives, and challenges of humanitarian interventions. Data gathered from published books and journals selected through rigorous analysis. The research finds that the failure of humanitarian interventions indicates the following: First, humanitarian interventions requires expensive cost in people’s life and other resources. Moreover, there is a moral obligation to save the victims.  Second, actors are engaged to operate the mission and has limited right to demonstrate their self-interest to protect the victims. Third is the issue of sovereignty and the subjected state’s willingness to integrate. To overcome the problem, government should promote global governance transformation and the cosmopolitanism nature between actors.


1977 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 608-609
Author(s):  
GILBERT LEVIN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document