Humanitarian Intervention, Colonialism, Islam, and Democracy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo Gozzi
1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Murad Wilfried Hofmann

This article examines the state of Islamic jurisprudence with regard to many sensitive issues, such as the status of women and minorities in Islam, Islam and Democracy, hudud punishments. The author explores the current state of Islamic discourse on jurisprudence and identifies three approaches-traditional, secular and reformist. The paper explores the positions of the traditional ulama and the reformist muj­tahids on the mentioned topics and finds the reformist position more sensible and closer to the position of ihe Qur'an and Sunnah. This paper while advocating neo-ijtihad, makes an impressive case for the merit???? and Islamic credibility of the reformist jurisprudence.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Volpi
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Richard Caplan

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.


Author(s):  
Marco Meyer

This chapter argues that even non-abusive interventions (those that are motivated purely by altruistic concern, have a just cause, are a last resort etc.) are morally problematic due to their effects on the international order. The trouble is that ‘bystander states’—those that are neither prosecuting the intervention nor targeted by it—usually do not have sufficient direct evidence that the intervention is just and properly motivated, nor can they trust the testimony of the intervening state. Thus, for all that bystander states know, any and every instance of humanitarian intervention is abusive: an act of unjust international aggression masquerading as something else. This, in turn, weakens the willingness of these bystander states to comply with the non-aggression norm themselves, since states are ‘conditional cooperators’—they abide by norms only insofar as they are reasonably assured that other states in the international arena are abiding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document