Western states have increasingly utilized moral rhetoric while advocating their case for war especially while executing coercive forms of humanitarian intervention, particularly after the end of the Cold War era. This period marked the rise in humanitarian intervention coordinated by Western military alliances such as NATO sanctioned by intergovernmental organizations such as the U.N.
Armed humanitarian intervention was not a legitimate practice in the cold war, but there was a significant shift of attitudes on this question during the 1990s, especially within liberal democratic states, which led the way for pressing new humanitarian claims within international society.
The principles under which such interventions have occurred can be rooted in the doctrines of just war theory, which defines if war or military actions are just based on pre-conditions involving initial causes, as well as the conduct of military operations.
In mind of the above mentioned, the initial aim of this disquisition is to rigorously examine just war theory especially in the post Cold War era considering if moral claims weigh against outcomes of humanitarian interventions in conflicts.
Many argue that the just war doctrine is unsustainable due to the nature of the international system which is characterized by anarchy. This argument is a response to Michael Walzer’s book Just and Unjust Wars (1977) which evaluates the concepts of just war theory and tradition partially against realism as a paradigm of international relations. Realists such as Hendrickson (1997) argue while there are in fact realist aspects within the just war thesis he takes issue, “however, with Walzer's treatment of intervention, self-determination, and the legitimate aims of war, stating that Walzer's framework is exceedingly permissive and ambiguous in these areas.” Hendrickson concludes that the use of such a just war theory may lead to significant problems in the post-Cold War world. This is primarily due to the issue of nuclear proliferation; a by-product of the Cold War. How does just war theory hold while attempting to adjust a moral framework around a world where states are increasingly seeking nuclear armament? Walzer himself admits that the use of nuclear weapons makes moral arguments redundant.
Another issue pertaining to the flaws of intervention on the basis of the just war doctrine relates to that of sovereignty. Making a case for forced humanitarian intervention infers there are limits to sovereignty. It is assumed in the international society that while states act as moral agents they are naturally obliged to pursue humanitarian claims by way of intervention. Furthermore the relationship between humanitarian objectives and intervention is seen as permanent and inextricable. The question arises, can coercive forms humanitarian intervention become unjust and alienated from the moral claims it initially aimed to uphold? In other words are just war principles constant, or subject to change?
A central aim of this topic is to critically assess if just war theory is sustainable in light of the flaws presented considering whether determining if wars are just or unjust shall continue to remain complex and controversial.
Armed humanitarian intervention was not a legitimate practice in the cold war, but there was a significant shift of attitudes on this question during the 1990s, especially within liberal democratic states, which led the way for pressing new humanitarian claims within international society.
The principles under which such interventions have occurred can be rooted in the doctrines of just war theory, which defines if war or military actions are just based on pre-conditions involving initial causes, as well as the conduct of military operations.
In mind of the above mentioned, the initial aim of this disquisition is to rigorously examine just war theory especially in the post Cold War era considering if moral claims weigh against outcomes of humanitarian interventions in conflicts.
Many argue that the just war doctrine is unsustainable due to the nature of the international system which is characterized by anarchy. This argument is a response to Michael Walzer’s book Just and Unjust Wars (1977) which evaluates the concepts of just war theory and tradition partially against realism as a paradigm of international relations. Realists such as Hendrickson (1997) argue while there are in fact realist aspects within the just war thesis he takes issue, “however, with Walzer's treatment of intervention, self-determination, and the legitimate aims of war, stating that Walzer's framework is exceedingly permissive and ambiguous in these areas.” Hendrickson concludes that the use of such a just war theory may lead to significant problems in the post-Cold War world. This is primarily due to the issue of nuclear proliferation; a by-product of the Cold War. How does just war theory hold while attempting to adjust a moral framework around a world where states are increasingly seeking nuclear armament? Walzer himself admits that the use of nuclear weapons makes moral arguments redundant.
Another issue pertaining to the flaws of intervention on the basis of the just war doctrine relates to that of sovereignty. Making a case for forced humanitarian intervention infers there are limits to sovereignty. It is assumed in the international society that while states act as moral agents they are naturally obliged to pursue humanitarian claims by way of intervention. Furthermore the relationship between humanitarian objectives and intervention is seen as permanent and inextricable. The question arises, can coercive forms humanitarian intervention become unjust and alienated from the moral claims it initially aimed to uphold? In other words are just war principles constant, or subject to change?
A central aim of this topic is to critically assess if just war theory is sustainable in light of the flaws presented considering whether determining if wars are just or unjust shall continue to remain complex and controversial.
