Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: Interests and Consequences

Abstract

This chapter situates Michael Walzer’s position on humanitarian intervention within a longer trajectory of theorizing and debate that stretches back to the creation of the modern state system. It then shows how his arguments on intervention in Just and Unjust Wars were shaped by both the restrictive legal framework on the use of force provided by the UN Charter, and his deep commitment to self-determination. Nonetheless, it also demonstrates the degree to which Walzer’s carefully reasoned exception to the “legalist paradigm,” which accepted humanitarian intervention in exceptional circumstances, also staked out controversial positions regarding the need for military victory over “oppressors,” the legitimacy of unilateral action, the importance of harnessing state interests, and the demands of post-intervention rebuilding. The chapter’s concluding section claims that our contemporary moral discussion of humanitarian intervention has evolved through more intense reflection on two issues: the role of state interests in motivating and shaping humanitarian intervention, and the need to (seriously) consider consequences in overall judgments of its legitimacy. It also argues that Walzer’s original position in Just and Unjust Wars, combined with his more recent writings on Libya and Syria, continues to provide us with the resources to grapple with these pressing ethical and political concerns.