Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:50:16.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Moral Basis of Humanitarian Intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Terry Nardin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the moral principles underlying the idea of humanitarian intervention. The analysis is in two parts, one historical and the other philosophical. First, the article examines arguments made in late medieval and early modern Europe for using armed force to punish the violation of natural law and to defend communities from tyranny and oppression, regardless of where they occur. It seeks to understand how moralists writing before the emergence of modern international law conceived what we now call humanitarian intervention.

In the context of international law, humanitarian intervention is usually understood to be an exception to the nonintervention principle. However, the natural law tradition regards international law as less important than the moral imperative to punish wrongs and protect the innocent.

Second, the article considers how humanitarian intervention is justified within the reformulation of the natural law tradition displayed in recent efforts to theorize morality along Kantian lines. In this reformulation, humanitarian intervention is a product of the duty of beneficence and, more specifically, of the right to use force to protect the innocent. The article draws upon the biblical injunction “Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor,” which has become a centerpiece of the modern reformulation, and briefly explores its application to humanitarian intervention in the context of international relations today. This reformulation of natural law explains why, despite modern efforts to make it illegal, humanitarian intervention remains, in principle, morally defensible.

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mishneh Torah XI, 5, 1, 14, glossing Leviticus 19:16, as translated by Hyman Klein in The Code of Maimonides, Book Eleven: The Book of Torts, Yale Judaic Series, vol. 9 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), p. 198.

2 The Secretary-General's Annual Report to the General Assembly, September 20,1999 (UN Press Release SG/SM 7136 and GA 9596). Also published as “Two Concepts of Sovereignty,” Economist September 18, 1999.

3 Donagan, Alan, The Theory of Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977Google Scholar; reprinted with corrections, 1979).

4 SaintAquinas, Thomas, Summary of Theology II–II, Q. 40, a. 1, in On Law, Morality, and Politics, ed. Baumgarth, William P. and Regan, Richard J., (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988), p. 221Google Scholar.

5 Augustine, , Questions on the Heptateuch 6.10, quoted by Aquinas, On Law, Morality, and Politicşp. 221Google Scholar.

6 More, Thomas, Utopia (1516), ed. Logan, George M. and Adams, Robert M. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 87–88Google Scholar.

7 Muldoon, James, Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 10–11, 12Google Scholar.

8 de Vitoria, Francisco, “On Dietary Laws, or Self-Restraint” (1537), in Writings, Political, ed. Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 230Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., pp. 225–26; and Victoria, , “On the American Indians” (1539), in Political Writings, ed. Pagden and Lawrance, p. 288Google Scholar.

10 de lasCasas, Bartolomé, In Defense of the Indians (1552), trans. Poole, Stafford (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1992), p. 207Google Scholar.

11 Hugo Grotius, De jure praedae (1604), published in English as Commentary on the law of Prize and Booty trans. Gwladys L. Williams (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), p. 10.

12 Ibid., p. 315Google Scholar.

13 Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Race: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotiusto Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 93–94Google Scholar.

14 Hugo Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis (1625), On the Law of War and Peace, 1646 edition trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), p. 504–506.

15 Ibid., p. 508Google Scholar.

16 vonPufendorf, Samuel, Of the Law of Nature and Nations (1672), trans. Oldfather, C. H. and Oldfa-ther, W. A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934), p. 847Google Scholar. I have modernized the spelling and punctuation.

17 vonPufendorf, Samuel, On the Duty of Man and Citizen, ed. Tully, James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 170Google Scholar.

18 Christian von Wolff, The Law of Nations Treated According to a Scientific Method (1748), trans. Drake, Joseph D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934Google Scholar), section 637; sections 258 and 1011.

19 de Vattel, Emmerich, The Law of Nations, or Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758), trans. Fenwick, Charles G (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1916), p. 131Google Scholar; see also p. 340.

20 Ibid., p. 116Google Scholar.

21 Mill, J. S., Dissertations and Discussionş 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, 1867), vol. 3, pp. 153–78Google Scholar. The essay was first published in 1859.

22 Edward Hall, William, A Treatise on International Law, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909), pp. 284Google Scholar, 287–88, 285 n.

23 Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), trans. Beck, Lewis White (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1959), p. 66–67Google Scholar.

24 Donagan, , The Theory of Morality, p. 1Google Scholar. My sketch of common morality draws freely on Donagan and on Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars(New York: Basic Books, 1977). On the connection between the arguments of these works, see Joseph Boyle, “Casuistry and the Boundaries of the Moral World,” Ethics & International Affairsll (1997), pp. 83–98.

25 Two recent and especially cogent explorations of the relationship between universal and communal moral views are Sen, Amartya, “Human Rights and Asian Values,” and Michael Walzer, “Universalism and Jewish Values,” the Sixteenth and Twentieth Morgenthau Memorial Lectures on Ethics and Foreign Policy (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, 1997 and 2001Google Scholar).

26 Grotius offers a statement of this distinction in Christian tradition when he writes that in the “holy law” of the New Testament, “a greater degree of moral perfection is enjoined upon us than the law of nature would require.” Law of War and Peace, p. 27Google Scholar.

27 Donagan, , The Theory of Morality pp. 85–87Google Scholar.

28 Ibid., p. 86Google Scholar.

29 Slater, Jerome and Nardin, Terry, “Nonintervention and Human Rights,” Journal of Politics 48 (1986), pp. 86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Vitoria, , “On the American Indians,” p. 288Google Scholar.

31 For criticism of the traditional definition, see Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 1996), p. 113–14Google Scholar.

32 Garrett, Stephen A., Doing Good and Doing Well: An Examination of Humanitarian Intervention (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999Google Scholar), chap. 7.

33 Tesón, Fernando R., A Philosaphy of International Law (Boulder, Col.: West view Press, 1998), p. 59Google Scholar.

34 Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Sodety (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 110Google Scholar.

35 Walzer provides a clear explanation of the principle of discrimination, and related ideas like double effect and due care, in Just and Unjust Wars pp. 151–59Google Scholar.

36 Walzer, in his preface to the third edition of Just and Unjust Wars (2000), agrees that intervention is an “imperfect duty,” but he is bitter about it: “The massacres go on, and every country that is able to stop them decides that it has more urgent tasks” (p. xiii).Google Scholar

37 Kant, Immanuel, Political Writings, 2nd ed., ed. Reiss, Hans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991Google Scholar).