JUS IN BELLO AND THE SOLIDARIST CASE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
JUS IN BELLO AND THE SOLIDARIST CASE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Summary/Abstract: It is our contention that even though in theory the array of arguments supportive of humanitarian intervention (with the purpose of saving innocent people in cases “that shock the human conscience”) are by now fortified, in practice certain military actions aimed at the protection of civilians are highly controversial, thus managing to undermine the plea for the legitimatization of forcible humanitarian actions. In this article we will follow the pluralist vs. solidarist debate on humanitarian intervention and discuss the R2P norm. Then, we will analyze the extent to which the military means employed by intervening forces contribute to collateral damage (i.e. to civilian casualties) and the way in which such actions collide with the morally loaded concept of responsibility to protect and the core ideas of jus in bello. The article will address the following questions: How is humanitarian intervention defined and how is the forcible humanitarian intervention defended? To what extent phrases such as “humanitarian war”, “armed humanitarians” or “humanitarian military intervention” entail a plea for ending human suffering; or, are they simply an oxymoron? What is the grounding attribute of both Just War theory and humanitarian intervention? To what extent was the jus in bello, as chief element of Just War theory, respected during NATO’s campaign in 1999 and during the intervention in Libya (2011)? Is there an incremental respect for the jus in bello during the period 1999-2011?

• Details
• Contents