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.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Philosophy
Reference13 articles.
1. When Numbers Lie: Why Isn't There an Accurate Death Toll in Libya?;Downie;New Republic,2011
2. A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention
3. The Case Against Our Attack on Libya;Walzer;New Republic,2011
Cited by
67 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. We need to talk about Jus ad vim;Journal of International Political Theory;2024-07-30
2. Is there a religious bias? Attitudes towards military humanitarian intervention in Germany;European Journal of International Security;2024-04-02
3. Humanitarian extractivism;HUMANITARIANISM KEY;2023-10-17
4. R2P: Opening Discursive Spaces for Politics of Protection;Contributions to International Relations;2023
5. Provision of assistance to opposition groups;Atrocity Crimes and International Law;2022-09-07