The ethical dilemma regarding humanitarian intervention can be illustrated by the tension between two United Nations documents. These two documents are:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1 (2005 World Summit Outcome Document) and the The UN Charter (1945) - particularly Article 2(7),
What are the two main ethical objections to humanitarian intervention outlined by Iain Atack?
Sovereignty Violations, use of armed force to save lives is a paradox for pacifists, armed force institutionalizes (or normalizes) militarism.
- Which of the following theories most closely aligns with the concept of humanitarian intervention?
Probably constructivism or cosmopolitanism. Between the two I’d lean constructivism.
According both to Iain Atack and Benjamin King, which jus ad bellum principle of the just war theory is more difficult to comply with when considering humanitarian intervention?
Proportionality is mentioned by both.
The three responsibilities of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine as formulated by the 2001 ICISS Report are:
Prevent, React, Rebuild
Responsibility to Prevent - Addressing both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises that put populations at risk
Responsibility to React - Responding to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions, international prosecution, and in extreme cases, military intervention
Responsibility to Rebuild - Providing full assistance with recovery, reconstruction, and reconciliation after an intervention, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert
According to the ICISS report on the Responsibility to Protect, the four precautionary principles that must be taken into consideration in order to justify humanitarian intervention are:
Last resort, proportionality, right intention, likelihood of success
How did the Independent Commission on Kosovo assess NATO’s military intervention in Kosovo in 1999?
Illegal (no authority) but legitimate (morally correct)
What did the nicaragua case say on intervention
it’s illegal
In an Orchestra, the Strings are destroying the Winds and have stated that their goal is to exterminate the Winds once and for all. The Winds claim that the Orchestra has failed to protect them and take the case to the Music Security Council (MSC). All but one of the members of the MSC agree that forceful intervention under R2P is needed to protect the Winds. The exception is the Piano, who uses its veto power to stop the intervention. Which critique of R2P is reflected in this musical scenario?
it’s a critique of legitimacy, which is mostly a practical issue. King rejected it as being necessary at all, wheeler looked at it as potentially an expression of neo-colonialism.
UNSC is a procedural constraint. Stuggles with real practical concerns.
Sometimes coupled with criticisms regarding sovereiengty.
Greenland shares a border with Blueland. Blueland is home to two distinct ethnic groups: Tribe A (the majority) and Tribe B (the minority). Tribe A and Tribe B have historical tensions, with Tribe B placed in power by a former colonial power. Tensions escalate and Tribe A assassinates Blueland’s President, who is a member of Tribe B, and assumes power in Blueland. Tribe A then begins a campaign of mass expulsion and killing of members of Tribe B. Under the R2P doctrine, can Greenland intervene militarily in Blueland to protect the population of Tribe B?
Under R2P, yes (with JWT considerations).
Prevent, React, Rebuild.
Consider the following scenario: A small contingent of Australian and Indonesian troops enter New Zealand, without the support of the United Nations Security Council, to end the widespread and government-sanctioned slaughter of Maori people. Thousands of pacifists line the streets of major Australian cities in protest against the intervention. Which of the following statements best represents their (pacifist) critique of this humanitarian intervention?
Armed response cannot be justified in any circumstance, just causes more death and normalises militarism.
- The Orangeland Freedom Fighters (OFF), a minority rebel group, capture a number of Australian students who are undertaking humanitarian work abroad in Orangeland. The Australian Prime Minister contacts the Minister of Defence seeking advice on whether the Australian Defence Force can mount a rescue operation to free the students. Which legal justification can the Minister of Defence provide for this type of military intervention?
Protection of nationals abroad.
- The dominant definition of terrorism excludes the state as a potential terrorist actor. This illustrates the fact that:
States do what they want. Terrorists are defined as whatever the state wants it to be, it is in the eye of the beholder.
Hulse and Spencer argue that: “Only we –how we think, how we talk and how we act, that is, our discourses- can provide evidence about whether or not terrorism actually works”. Which of the four common characteristics of terrorism underpins this argument?
Terrorism is a social construction
- Following Israel’s airstrike in 2003 on an alleged terrorist training camp deep inside Syria, George W. Bush stated: “Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland”. Which of the following theories is best reflected in this statement?
Realism? Consequentialism?
Realism, maybe consequentialism depending on mct contexts
You are a consequentialist and you are given the task of interrogating a prisoner captured during the War on Terror. Which of the following is the reason you refuse to employ torture?
it is ineffective
Which two basic models compete in assessing the legality of the targeted killing of known or suspected terrorists?
armed conflict model, law enforcement model.
Helen Frowe argues that even if torturing a terrorist were to be effective in extracting information that could save innocent lives, the utilitarian [consequentialist] analysis must also include the wider consequences of state-backed torture. Which of the following are some of the consequences that would make the costs of torture higher than that its benefits?
Introduces bad norms, impact on torturers, institutional corruption, institutional degredation, wider adoption
According to Steven Koven and Abby Perez, what is the difference between targeted killings and assassinations?
Legitimacy is the issue. Immenant threat and time of war give legitimacy.
Assasination is murder, targeted killing is not.
Self defence is part of it
I don’t think they actually came to their own conclusion.
Saw Gerrera is a notorious leaver of a radical terrorist organisation. He has been responsible for attacks that have killed thousands of innocent lives, and he has made it clear he will continue to plan and conduct terrorist operations. The Imperial Security Bureau (ISB) discover his location, and find him resting alone, on a beach. The ISB authorises a targeted drone strike that kills Saw Gerrera. How would a proponent of the ‘law enforcement model’ -as outlined in Steven Koven and Abby Perez (2022)- assess the legality of this targeted killing?
the perspective of the law enforcement model, targeting killing equates to unjustified homicide; unknown executioners preselect individuals for death and operations are put in place. These unknown executioners act beyond the scrutiny of the public in a non-transparent manner.
Illegal, extrajudicial killing,
Consider the following statement by Alan Shore in the Boston Legal episode “Stick it” (Season 2, Episode 19): “If the people of this country have spoken, the message is we’re okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial ―or any trial, war on false pretences. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended”. Could this statement be used to justify terrorist attacks against the citizens of the United States?
Could it? Sure. Does it? No. Collective punishment is bad. Collective responsibility is not really a thing.
Which of the following statements best describes the difference between old (modern) and new (postmodern) wars?
geography (where is the battlefield, is there one?)
asymmetry
no uniforms
cyber tech
is it kinetic?
how to quanitfy damages
ntra-state conflicts
privatised conflicts
civilian casualties
protracted conflicts
- Which of the following represents a realist response to new (postmodern) wars?
State’s will act to increase their power and security. Doesn’t matter if it is on the battlefield or in the information sphere.
In the context of new or postmodern wars, the expression ‘World Wild West’ is used to refer to:
absence of actual authority to boss people around.
