scholarly journals Killing, Letting Die, and the Alleged Necessity of Military Intervention

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Calhoun
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Deadly Force ◽  
Collateral Damage ◽  
Moral Distinction ◽  
Killing And Letting Die ◽  
Letting Die

Recent international developments have introduced the possibility of war waged on behalf of people unable to defend themselves, and when the attacking parties’ interests appear not to be at stake. Are purely military forms of “humanitarian intervention” sometimes morally required? Can such military missions be reconciled with the widely held belief in the moral distinction between killing and letting die? In exploring these questions, the two dominant paradigms in writing about war are considered: just war theory and utilitarianism. The moral centrality of intentions emerges through an explanation of the distinction often made between natural and man-made catastrophe. Ultimately, the alleged permissibility of the “collateral damage” to which military intervention gives rise implies the permissibility of pacifism, thus invalidating the claim that the resort to deadly force is sometimes morally obligatory.

The Internal Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Just War ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Institutional Processes

This chapter addresses a remarkably neglected issue in just war theory: the internal legitimacy of humanitarian military intervention, military actions in another state undertaken with the objective of stopping occurring or preventing imminent large-scale violations of basic human rights, without the consent of the state in which the intervention occurs. When such wars cannot be justified as necessary for protecting the rights or advancing the interests of the citizens of the states that undertake them, the question arises as to whether they are legitimate from the standpoint of the state’s own citizens. This chapter argues that the decision to engage in humanitarian wars is so especially serious and problematic (given that the primary duty of the state is to protect the rights and serve the interests of its own citizens), that special institutional processes are needed for authorizing such military action.

Debating Humanitarian Intervention

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Tesón ◽  
Bas van der Vossen
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Analytic Philosophy ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Almost All

The book offers contrasting views of humanitarian intervention—a war aimed at ending tyranny or violence. Fernando Tesón argues that humanitarian interventions are sometimes permissible; Bas van der Vossen argues that as a rule they are not. The authors use the tools of modern analytic philosophy, in particular just war theory, to substantiate their claims. According to Tesón, a humanitarian intervention has the same just cause as a justified revolution: ending tyranny. He analyzes the different kinds of just cause and whether or not an intervener may pursue other justified causes. For Tesón, the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is almost exclusively determined by the rules of proportionality. Bas van der Vossen, by contrast, holds that military intervention is morally impermissible in almost all cases. Justified interventions, van der Vossen argues, must have high ex ante chance of success. Analyzing the history and prospects of intervention shows that they almost never do.

The Moral Status of Combatants during Military Humanitarian Intervention

Utilitas ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEX LEVERINGHAUS
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Target State ◽  
The Status

Recent debates in just war theory have been concerned with the status of combatants during war. Unfortunately, however, the debate has, up to now, focused on self-defensive wars. The present article changes the focus slightly by exploring the status of combatants during military humanitarian intervention (MHI). It begins by arguing that MHI poses a number of challenges to our thinking about the status of combatants. To solve these it draws on Jeff McMahan's theory of combatant liability. On this basis, the article contends that, first, combatants engaged in atrocities lack the same set of rights and liberties held by intervening combatants. Second, and more controversially, drawing on McMahan's theory as well as the notion of complicity, it suggests that the same applies to those combatants who do not perpetrate atrocities but are merely ordered to defend the target state against the intervening state.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón ◽  
Bas van der Vossen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self

We introduce general concepts of just war theory and describe different kinds of war: national self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention. After laying down the conditions for the justification of humanitarian intervention, we highlight some of our differences. We conclude with an outline of the international law of use of force and some jurisprudential themes that bear on the current humanitarian intervention debate.

scholarly journals Moral Justification of Humanitarian Intervention in Modern Just War Theory

2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 58-73
Author(s):  
Arseniy D. Kumankov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Mass Violence ◽  
Mass Murders

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document