Waging War in the Name of Human Rights? Fourteen Theses about Humanitarian Intervention
Waging War in the Name of Human Rights? Fourteen Theses about Humanitarian Intervention

Summary/Abstract: The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the case of the Bosnian town Srebrenica one year later reminded some observers of the infamous “abandonment of the Jews” in the forties. These events helped strengthen a belief that the western states have the right, or even the obligation, to infringe the sovereignty of less-developed states in the name of universal human rights. This interventionist consensus between Left and Right, between the USA and Western Europe, found its climax in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. Bush’s crusade against Iraq interrupted that consensus. Out of the gap which has re-opened between Left and Right and the USA and Europe, two questions have emerged: are there any universal moral grounds upon which states and/or international organisations can base their interventions in the internal affairs of other states? And if so, are there any criteria which can help us distinguish humanitarian interventions from imperial conquests with moral facades? The tentative answers, which will be discussed, are as follows. Firstly, there are basic human rights which we owe to one another not only as members of our respective national communities but also as members of the universal community of humankind. Secondly, the legitimacy of intervention stems from multilateral procedures: the less these procedures are used for decision making, the less legitimate the intervention is.

• Details
• Contents