Ethics of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect

What is it about?

What should be done when a massacre or similar atrocity occurs in a country other than one's own? The suggestion that other countries should halt the atrocity, using force if necessary, yields the idea of humanitarian intervention. The moral principle underlying that doctrine is not hard to grasp. When human lives are threatened by violence, those who are able to resist the violence and rescue the victims should intervene, if they can do so by morally permissible means and without imposing disproportionate costs. The rationale for intervening is strongest when violence rises to the level of so-called “crimes against humanity,” an expression adopted for the trial of German leaders at Nuremberg in 1945 to cover large-scale violence by a government against its own people. Because it is in tension with the idea of state sovereignty, humanitarian intervention has an insecure place in international law and is problematic on practical grounds as well, but that tension has only fueled debate on the circumstances in which forcible interference by one state in the territory of another, or by the international community acting collectively, is justified.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Critically surveys recent literature and explains key concepts. A revised version will be available in 2018.

Perspectives