Phil302
Should we intervene in other countries in cases of humanitarian crisis ?
Stephen Harwood assesses the moral arguments for and against military intervention in other countries to prevent humanitarian crises , weighing up values such as sovreignty . Harwood defends the liberal view that humanitarian intervention is morally permissable under certain circumstances .
PHILOSOPHY
Perceived inaction by the international community towards humanitarian crises in the past thirty years has revived an ethical and legal debate on when , if ever , armed humanitarian intervention is permissible . I will examine the most salient areas of contention within this debate . Firstly , I will challenge positions that defend an almost total principle of non-intervention on the basis of sovereignty or practicality . I will then consider some general principles on when and how an armed humanitarian intervention is morally permissible , and in fact morally required . I will conclude that principles of fair conduct and due international process would create suitable conditions to allow for such interventions in cases of humanitarian crisis .
Definition and legal status
Humanitarian intervention can take many forms . Yet the moral debate being considered focuses mainly on armed humanitarian intervention by foreign military forces . Holzgrefe provides a useful definition for this modern phenomenon : “ the threat or use of force across state borders by a state ( or group of states ) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens , without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied ” ( 2003 : 18 ). It should be added that humanitarian ends need not be the whole purpose behind the intervention , but at least a
157