Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention

نویسندگان

  • Garrett Wallace Brown
  • Alexandra Bohm
چکیده

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.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

The Burden of Autonomy: Non-combatant Immunity and Humanitarian Intervention

Michael Walzer argues that except in cases involving genocide or mass slaughter, humanitarian intervention is unjustifiable because “citizens get the government they deserve, or, at least, the government for which they are ‘fit.’”1 Yet, if people are autonomous and deserve the government that rules over them, then it would seem that they are responsible for the government’s actions, including t...

متن کامل

Challenges of Twenty-first Century Conflicts: a Look at Direct Participation in Hostilities

During times of armed conflict, whether characterized as international or non-international, International Humanitarian Law (“IHL”) is applicable. As a body of law, IHL does not question the lawfulness of a conflict (jus ad bellum) but seeks instead to apply humanitarian principles in warfare (jus in bello). IHL recognizes that even war has its limits, irrespective of its cause, and strives to ...

متن کامل

Legal Phantoms in Cyberspace: The Problematic Status of Information as a Weapon and a Target Under International Humanitarian Law

Reports of state-sponsored harmful cyber intrusions abound. The prevailing view among academics holds that if the effects or consequences of such intrusions are sufficiently damaging, international humanitarian law (IHL) should generally govern them-and recourse to armed force may also be justified against states responsible for these actions under the jus ad bellum. This Article argues, howeve...

متن کامل

"Attack" as a term of art in international law: The cyber operations context

This article examines the meanings of “attack” in international law. It points out that the term is used in two distinct bodies of that law. First, the term “armed attack” appears in the jus ad bellum, which governs when a State may resort to force as an instrument of its national policy. In that context, it serves as a condition precedent to the resort to force in self-defence pursuant to Arti...

متن کامل

The Ethics of Killing in War * Jeff McMahan

The traditional theory of the just war comprises two sets of principles, one governing the resort to war ( jus ad bellum) and the other governing the conduct of war ( jus in bello). The two sets of principles are regarded, in Michael Walzer’s words, as “logically independent. It is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance wi...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017