Law, morality and armed conflict: striking a balance on humanitarian intervention.
Loading...
Date
2010-11
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Kampala International University, School of Law
Abstract
‘With all the uprising happening in the world, it is important for states to understand what exactly happens before they choose to go to war with another state. When the world divided itself into superpowers, developing, and underdeveloped countries, some states assumed the role of masters and others of serfs.
Under international law, the right of self-defense gives every state a right to respond to an
armed attack that has already taken place. Whether it also includes a right to use force in
anticipation of an attack that has not yet occurred is contested. If it does, this right is
limited to preemptive use of force. Preventive war is clearly outlawed. The dominant
view among normative theorists, however, is that preemption can be legitimate when it is
a response to immediate threats which pose great harm and the use of force is the last the
relevant question thus, is rather whether preventive war ever can be justified. As will
soon become apparent, this is far more controversial.
The crucial questions for the assessment of the justice of humanitarian intervention thus
seems to be: Do our moral concern extend beyond our family, friends and fellow citizens
to strangers abroad facing grave human rights violations? And do the needs of these
strangers weight as much as the needs of family, friends, and fellow citizens?
I believe so. The debate on communal integrity is mainly about when humanitarian
intervention can be justified, not if. The question should be. under what circumstances
intervention may be justified, rather than if it ever can be justified
Description
A dissertation submitted as a partial requirement for the Awarding of the Bachelors of a Law Degree in Kampala International University
Keywords
Law, Morality, Armed conflict