The Experts below are selected from a list of 11667 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

James Pattison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • is there a duty to intervene Intervention and the responsibility to protect
    Philosophy Compass, 2013
    Co-Authors: James Pattison
    Abstract:

    This article considers the duty to undertake Humanitarian Intervention. It first examines the arguments for the duty to intervene and questions the possibility of supererogatory Humanitarian Intervention. It then considers the leading objections to this duty which, it is argued, are largely unpersuasive. In the final section, the article considers the duty to intervene in the context of the responsibility to protect doctrine, which provides the framework within which debates about Humanitarian Intervention now in large part occur.

  • the ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in libya
    Ethics & International Affairs, 2011
    Co-Authors: James Pattison
    Abstract:

    Wars and Interventions bring to the fore certain ethical issues. For instance, NATO's Intervention in Kosovo in 1999 raised questions about the moral import of UN Security Council authorization (given that the Council did not authorize the action), and the means employed by interveners (given NATO's use of cluster bombs and its targeting of dual-use facilities). In what follows, I consider the moral permissibility of the NATO-led Intervention in Libya and suggest that this particular Intervention highlights three issues for the ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in general. The first issue is whether standard accounts of the ethics of Humanitarian Intervention, which draw heavily on just war theory, can capture the prospect of mission creep. The second issue is whether epistemic difficulties in assessing the Intervention's likely long-term success mean that we should reject consequentialist approaches to Humanitarian Intervention. The third issue concerns selectivity. I outline an often overlooked way that selectivity can be problematic for Humanitarian Intervention.

  • Humanitarian Intervention and the responsibility to protect who should intervene
    2010
    Co-Authors: James Pattison
    Abstract:

    1. The Problem of Who Should Intervene 2. Humanitarian Intervention and International Law 3. Effectiveness and the Moderate Instrumentalist Approach 4. An Intervener's Conduct: Humanitarian Intervention and Jus In Bello 5. Representativeness and Humanitarian Intervention 6. An Intervener's Humanitarian Credentials: Motives, Intentions, and Outcomes 7. Assessing Current Interveners 8. Reforms to the Agents and Mechanisms of Humanitarian Intervention 9. Conclusion: Realizing Legitimate Humanitarian Intervention References

  • whose responsibility to protect the duties of Humanitarian Intervention
    Journal of Military Ethics, 2008
    Co-Authors: James Pattison
    Abstract:

    Abstract The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's report, The Responsibility to Protect, argues that when a state is unable or unwilling to uphold its citizens’ basic human rights, such as in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens by undertaking Humanitarian Intervention. An essential issue, however, remains unresolved: which particular agent in the international community has the duty to intervene? In this article, I critically examine four ways of assigning this duty. Although I highlight the benefits of institutionalising the responsibility to protect, I argue that we should adopt, in the short term at least, a consequentialist solution: Humanitarian Intervention should be the responsibility of the intervener that will be the most effective.

Jonathan E Davis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • from ideology to pragmatism china s position on Humanitarian Intervention in the post cold war era
    Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jonathan E Davis
    Abstract:

    This chapter examines People's Republic of China's (PRC) state practice and official pronouncements in the post-Cold War cases frequently cited by academics when considering the international legal status of Humanitarian Intervention: the no-fly zones established in Iraq after the first Gulf War. The chapter focuses on the evolution of China's position on Humanitarian Intervention since the end of the Cold War. In the process, it also examines Chinese attitudes toward state sovereignty. The case of Somalia provides further evidence of China's early post-Cold War views on Humanitarian Intervention. Similar evidences at Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Libya and Syria are also included. Keywords:Humanitarian Intervention; international legal status; People's Republic of China (PRC); post-Cold War era; state sovereignty

  • from ideology to pragmatism china s position on Humanitarian Intervention in the post cold war era
    Social Science Research Network, 2010
    Co-Authors: Jonathan E Davis
    Abstract:

    This Article fills a gap in the literature by examining in depth China’s state practice and official pronouncements in respect of nine post-Cold War cases typically cited by academics when considering the international legal status of Humanitarian Intervention. The majority of today’s commentary and scholarship holds that the People’s Republic of China’s position on sovereignty and Intervention remains inflexible and absolutist, much as it was for the PRC’s first four decades. This Article contends that this view is outdated and overly simplistic: while China continues to champion a strong conception of state sovereignty in interstate relations, it has signaled a shift from an ideological insistence on noninterference toward a more pragmatic approach to Humanitarian crises. In particular, this can be seen in China’s willingness to acquiesce in and even actively support multilateral Humanitarian Interventions that obtain both Security Council authorization and target state consent, as well as in China’s willingness to use its growing economic and diplomatic leverage to help secure consent to Intervention.

Alex J Bellamy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the un security council and the question of Humanitarian Intervention in darfur
    Journal of Military Ethics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Alex J Bellamy, Paul D Williams
    Abstract:

    This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a Humanitarian Intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of Humanitarian Intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of Humanitarian Intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put Humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed.

  • whither the responsibility to protect Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 world summit
    Ethics & International Affairs, 2006
    Co-Authors: Alex J Bellamy
    Abstract:

    At the 2005 World Summit, the world's leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world's most threatened people. The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to Humanitarian Intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world's states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a Humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN's High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around Intervention in future cases.

  • responsibility to protect or trojan horse the crisis in darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after iraq
    Ethics & International Affairs, 2005
    Co-Authors: Alex J Bellamy
    Abstract:

    What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of Humanitarian Intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and Humanitarian goods amplified by the Intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt Humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" Humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about Humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the Humanitarian Intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-Interventionist arguments.

  • motives outcomes intent and the legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention
    Journal of Military Ethics, 2004
    Co-Authors: Alex J Bellamy
    Abstract:

    During the 1990s, international society increasingly recognised that states who abuse their citizens in the most egregious ways ought to lose their sovereign inviolability and be subject to Humanitarian Intervention. The emergence of this norm has given renewed significance to the debate concerning what it is about Humanitarian Intervention that makes it legitimate. The most popular view is that it is Humanitarian motivations that legitimise Intervention. Others insist that Humanitarian outcomes are more important that an actor's motivations, pointing for instance to the ousting of the Khmer Rouge by Vietnam. Given the centrality of this debate, this article reinvestigates the ‘motives versus outcomes’ debate and suggests an alternative reading based on the classic Just War tradition. It argues that an actor's intentions are vital to assessing the legitimacy of an Intervention.

Thomas G Weiss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Humanitarian Intervention ideas in action
    2007
    Co-Authors: Thomas G Weiss
    Abstract:

    * Table of Contents * About the Author * List of Abbreviations * Foreword by Gareth Evans * Acknowledgements * Introduction *1 Conceptual Building Blocks * *2 "Humanitarian" Interventions: Thumbnail Sketches * *3 New Wars and New Humanitarianisms * *4 New Thinking: The Responsibility to Protect * *5 So What? Moving from Rhetoric to Reality * * Notes * Selected Readings * Index *

  • the responsibility to protect is anyone interested in Humanitarian Intervention
    Third World Quarterly, 2004
    Co-Authors: Neil S Macfarlane, Carolin Thielking, Thomas G Weiss
    Abstract:

    In a post‐September 11 and post‐Iraq world, many people and states are having second thoughts about the importance and risks of Humanitarian Intervention. Does any one care any longer? Observers ha...

  • the sunset of Humanitarian Intervention the responsibility to protect in a unipolar era
    Security Dialogue, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas G Weiss
    Abstract:

    In spite of the current preoccupations, in the United States and in the United Nations, with the wars on terrorism and the occupation in Iraq, Humanitarian Intervention remains an important policy option. Future debates and action are framed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, whose report entitled The Responsibility To Protect and an accompanying research volume were published in December 2001. Future Humanitarian crises will arise in conjunction with the need for military force to protect human beings, and so four shortcomings of the report are evident. First, the report is not as forward-looking as the commissioners thought or as many opponents feared. Second, the concerns of the most vehement critics, especially developing countries, are misplaced because the problem is too little Humanitarian Intervention, not too much. Third, the purported danger that the concept of the responsibility to protect might become a Trojan Horse to be used by the great powers to interven...

Amos N Guiora - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Humanitarian Intervention and sovereignty under the umbrella of geo politics
    Social Science Research Network, 2013
    Co-Authors: Amos N Guiora
    Abstract:

    The events of the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Libya and Egypt raise profound questions regarding the tension between international Humanitarian Intervention and state sovereignty in the context of geo-politics. In examining this tension, it is necessary to understand overarching geo-political considerations regarding issues critical to understanding international relations and international law in a paradigm best described as "murky". This murkiness applies to facts on the ground and the legal and policy questions confronting decision makers, both regionally and globally.One of the practical results -- or fall-outs -- of dramatic regime change is the need to identify new, key decision makers and their inner circles, develop new information and intelligence sources, and understand the relationship between the new civilian leadership and the national security establishment. This is an issue that confronts world leaders daily, requiring assessment of possible actions by a government that recently replaced a deeply entrenched regime that ruled with an iron hand, but whose commitment to international obligations was unquestioned. Both paradigms raise legitimate concerns regarding the relationship between sovereignty, Intervention, and geo-politics. The Syrian dilemma is tangible and immediate, whereas the Egyptian paradigm is suggestive as a hypothetical. Therefore, this Essay focuses on Humanitarian Intervention -- or lack thereof -- in the face of extraordinary human rights violations.

  • Humanitarian Intervention and sovereignty under the umbrella of geo politics
    University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 2013
    Co-Authors: Amos N Guiora
    Abstract:

    The events of the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Libya and Egypt raise profound questions regarding the tension between international Humanitarian Intervention and state sovereignty in the context of geo-politics. In examining this tension, it is necessary to understand overarching geo-political considerations regarding issues critical to understanding international relations and international law in a paradigm best described as “murky.” This murkiness applies to facts on the ground and the legal and policy questions confronting decision makers, both regionally and globally. While the Arab Spring was widely perceived as the dawn of a new age in the Middle East, it is too early to fully assess its consequences. On the one hand, elections in Egypt reflect change while continued massacres in Syria, on the other hand, recall the actions of previous Middle Eastern regimes. The question regarding Syria is: when do Humanitarian considerations justify Intervention into a sovereign state? The question the international community would face regarding Egypt is: how should it respond if the Morsi government reneges on preexisting international obligations? While some would point to Egypt’s free and fair elections as a positive indicator, others would suggest that the outcome is troubling, for it potentially portends significant changes in Egyptian foreign policy. After all, the electoral successes of the Muslim Brotherhood suggest that changes are in the offing. Perhaps Bob Dylan’s oft-quoted phrase that “the times they are a-changin’”1 aptly captures the moment. But changing where and to what? Because of the uncertainty of the moment, international