Abstract

Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.

Highlights

  • To make our argument for why principles of Jus ante Bellum are crucial to debates about humanitarian military intervention, the article is divided into four sections

  • The third section seeks to illustrate that the lack of discussion about incorporating principles of Jus ante Bellum in debates about humanitarian military intervention is not confined to the realm of academia; Jus ante Bellum principles relate directly to current preventative shortcomings within the Responsibility to Protect (RtP) and other international laws concerning the use of force

  • We have argued that many cosmopolitan claims about humanitarian military intervention are incomplete on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats

Read more

Summary

Introduction

To make our argument for why principles of Jus ante Bellum are crucial to debates about humanitarian military intervention, the article is divided into four sections. The second section explores three current themes within cosmopolitan debates about humanitarian intervention and how these themes intersect and potentially support our argument for the incorporation of principles of Jus ante Bellum. The fourth section will draw out three key implications of our argument for cosmopolitan thought more generally and how these relate to the practice of humanitarian military intervention. By exploring these implications, it will be argued that incorporating Jus ante Bellum principles into the cosmopolitan debate about the use of force will add greater consistency, legitimacy and focus to cosmopolitan humanitarian interventions and how our understanding of ‘intervention’ can better correspond to broader cosmopolitan ambitions

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call