Question Of Humanitarian Intervention Research Articles

Safety, Humanism, and Barbarism: J. S. Mill on the Principle of Non-Intervention

The paper considers the Russian translation of the article “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” written by British political philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, and whose article, published in 1859, transforms the criteria restricting the principle of non-interference. Thus, in the essay “On Freedom”, the rule of non-interference into private life is described, but in “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”, Mill expands the principle to the international level, taking into consideration those situations allowing for intervention. The authors highlight the features of war contemporary to Mill, and articulate his military reflection in connection with the phenomenon of national liberation movements and revolts. They analyze Mill’s question if it is legitimate for one government to somehow intervene in the affairs of another. The logic of just military intervention for Mill in the cases described opens up the possibility for the use of force, but only for the civilized States. The philosopher divides the civilized nations from barbarians, where the latter are characterized as incapable of striving for freedom and therefore needing intervention from civilized countries. In this regard, the logic of the article leads to a strategy of humanitarian war caused by rhetoric of the “responsibility to protect”. The first Russian translation of “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” is proposed as a relevant source for the philosophy of war, raising the issue of sovereignty. It is stated that modern military practice poses the question of humanitarian intervention: is it worth neglecting sovereignty if we face a “scandal to humanity”?

The UN Security Council and the Question of Humanitarian Intervention in Darfur

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.

The North-south Divide at the United Nations: Fading at Last?

After an early period in which Western countries dominated the debates and decisions of most United Nations bodies, the era of decolonization introduced several decades during which UN debates (and sometimes votes) came to be organized mainly along a North-South divide. The authors provide a brief history of this often poisonous dynamic, then focus on three recent debates at the UN: the discussion surrounding the Brahimi Report on UN peace operations, the question of humanitarian intervention, and the issue of financing for development. They argue that while the North-South divide has hampered the work (and often the reputation) of the United Nations, a more sober, less ideological mood seems to have taken hold of the UN, particularly in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001.

Just War or Perpetual Peace?

Contemporary debate on humanitarian intervention has prompted a revival of interest in the Just War ( justum bellum ) tradition of moral reflection. This tradition can be seen to provide an ethical vocabulary for assessing and possibly justifying these interventions. Just War is typically viewed as a middle way between Pacifism, on the one hand, and Realism, on the other; hence an ample literature exists comparing these traditions. Considerably less has been written, however, contrasting Just War with Perpetual Peace. This article seeks to remedy that lacuna, with particular application to the question of humanitarian intervention. Taking the political controversy over NATO's 1999 Kosovo intervention as its point of departure, the article shows how support or opposition to this intervention often hinged upon the differing presuppositions of the Just War and Perpetual Peace traditions. It then proceeds to map out these different presuppositions by historical reference to exponents of each tradition, Aquinas and Vitoria for the former, Dante and Kant for the latter.