e-book The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach book. Happy reading The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The ethical dilemma of non-forcible Humanitarian Interventions: Utilitarian vs. Kantian Approach Pocket Guide.
What is Kobo Super Points?
Contents:


  1. ADVERTISEMENT
  2. 02. Bibliographie
  3. Literature of Liberty, Autumn , vol. 3, No. 3 - Online Library of Liberty
  4. Humanitarian Intervention

Shop Books. Add to Wishlist. USD 9. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Explore Now. Buy As Gift. Overview Essay from the year in the subject Health Science, grade: 1,7, University of Southern Denmark, language: English, abstract: Begrifflichkeiten, wie z. Desweiteren nehme ich Bezug auf die ethische Problematik dieses Themas. Diese werden zu anderen abgegrenzt, an Beispielen veranschaulicht und sowohl der Utilitarismus als auch die Kantische Ethik und deren Kritiken werden hier in Bezug gestellt.

Product Details. Average Review. Notwithstanding the wealth of existing literature, the Commission felt the need to generate a good deal of additional research of its own, to fill gaps in that literature, to bring it up to date and to draw together in a more manageable way information and ideas scattered through many primary and secondary sources in many languages.

Thus the Research Essays in Part I , which constitute the bulk of this volume. Between them, the nine essays cover, in depth, the full range of issues with which the Commission had to grapple. We were particularly concerned to ensure that we had before us, as an input into our deliberations, a thoroughly balanced analysis of all those issues, with all the major arguments and counter-arguments fully laid out.

To the extent that views or conclusions are expressed from time to time in these essays — almost unavoidable in an exercise of this kind — they are, of course, those of the researchers and not the Commission. The primary authors of these essays in their final published form were Thomas G. Weiss and Don Hubert, of the Commission's research team, to whom the Commission owes an enormous debt of gratitude. Their writing was based, in turn, on substantial contributions from over fifty other scholars and specialists, whose names are listed in the acknowledgements which follow, who submitted either specially commissioned research papers, or who made specifically requested contributions to the regional and national roundtables further described below.

Associate Editors

The Commission's Report — and in particular its central theme of "The Responsibility to Protect" — goes in a number of ways beyond the discussion in the Research Essays collected here. But those essays were very much the quarry from which the Report was mined. They should also be seen as supplementing, and adding a great deal of detail for example in its descriptions of past interventions, both before and after to a Report which was deliberately limited in length to increase its chances of being read.

The Commission very much hopes that the Research Essays will in turn prove to be, for policy makers and commentators of the future, a mine of detailed and useful information and analysis. Access to high quality written research was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the Commission to produce its report. Dealing with subject matter of this kind, involving such sensitive and volatile policy issues, and with many different views evident in different parts of the world, it was absolutely crucial for the Commission to hear directly from those actually or potentially affected by interventions, or in a position to undertake them, or with strong and well-considered views on the issues in question.

The meetings involved representatives from governments and intergovernmental organizations, from nongovernmental organizations and civil society, and from universities, research institutes and think-tanks — in all, over people. These roundtable meetings proved to be a wonderfully rich source of information, ideas and diverse political perspectives, and an excellent real world environment in which the Commission could test its own ideas as they evolved.

Summary accounts of each of the roundtable meetings, together with lists of those who participated in them, are also included in Part III of this volume. As much as we might hope otherwise, nothing is more likely than that the international community will sooner or later again be confronted by events all too reminiscent of the agonies of the last decade in the Great Lakes, the Balkans, Haiti, Somalia, Sierra Leone, East Timor and elsewhere.


  • Dark Thunder.
  • Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: 40.
  • Full text issues!

Reacting to these situations in the ad hoc, and often ineffective or counter-productive, way we have in the past is not good enough for interdependent global neighbours in the twenty-first century. We have to do better. The material gathered and described in this volume has played an important part in the deliberations of the Commission, and we warmly thank all those involved in writing, collecting or contributing to it. If the Report that has grown out of this material can help bring about a more systematic, balanced and less ideological debate of the main issues by the international community — and even more if it comes to provide an accepted framework for dealing with these matters, as they arise in the future, in concrete and positive ways — then our work will have been ground-breaking indeed.

ICISS is indebted to the following scholars and specialists who have contributed to the research essays and bibliography in this supplementary volume.

ADVERTISEMENT

While the two primary authors, Thomas G. Weiss and Don Hubert, wrote and deserve full credit for the essays as they finally appear, they received substantial written input from all those other contributors listed, who between them brought an extraordinary store of knowledge and experience to ICISS's deliberations. Thomas G. UN Ideas and Gobal Challenges He has also worked for the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.

Given the divisive views about the topic of intervention and state sovereignty, a first thought was to produce an edited volume containing essays with representative views from all points of the spectrum. This approach was abandoned after an initial meeting of researchers in London in October It would have been impossible in a volume of manageable length to reflect so many geographical, philosophical, political, and moral positions on so many different dimensions of the debate.

Instead, some 15 specialists were asked to spell out the range of contemporary views, with the understanding that their raw material would be transformed by us. During this transformation, we also drew on the background papers and summary reports prepared for the various roundtables and consultations held by ICISS, which are summarized in Part III of this volume.

The names of both types of colleagues figure in the acknowledgements to this volume as contributors, but few of them would recognize their building blocks in the present text. We have written and rewritten texts, moved parts of arguments, and inserted a substantial body of new material. The task given to us by ICISS was to lay out in straightforward and nonargumentative terms the main issues behind the debate about humanitarian intervention that has taken place over the last decade.

Working within these parameters, the three main sections of the research part of this volume are designed to provide readers with a common framework to understand its various dimensions. Section A lays out the elements in the debate. Three essays discuss the range of meanings associated with the potentially politically charged and emotionally laden terms of state sovereignty and intervention, as well as the related notion of prevention. These essays provide a foundation for reviewing the subsequent historical overview and analysis.

Section B consists of two essays that systematically review the evolution of state practice toward humanitarian intervention since the founding of the United Nations Charter regime.

02. Bibliographie

This story, and the legitimate and illegitimate uses of "humanitarian" to justify intervention, are as old as the Westphalian system of international relations. The first essay provides an overview of nonconsensual interventions that had humanitarian objectives or resulted in substantial humanitarian benefits between and The real emphasis is, however, on interventions after , which are summarized in the second essay of this section. The post-Cold War era has not changed everything, but it certainly has altered the prospects for intrusions into what had formerly been considered the more protected domain of sovereign states — to manage their domestic human rights policy without outside interference.

Section C builds on the essential elements and past history to explore the moral, legal, operational, and political dimensions of humanitarian intervention. Virtually all analyses of intervention and state sovereignty have examined the issues from the point of view of an intervener. When is intervention for humanitarian purposes justified? How is it authorized? What is the most effective way to conduct it? And how can sufficient political will be mobilized to mount and maintain an intervention?

A further essential perspective running throughout the four essays is how intervention is viewed by, and what effect it has on, populations at risk. Part II of the volume is an extensive bibliography on the intervention debate. In a field that has burgeoned in the contemporary era, it is impossible to be comprehensive. However, more than 2, entries are listed under 12 basic headings, and they provide an impressive listing of key literature from a variety of perspectives.

This part, and in particular the electronic version available on CD-ROM or on the web, provides an important resource for researchers.

We are grateful for having had the challenging assignment of providing this input into the work of this Commission. We are especially indebted to a number of individuals. Throughout the process, Co-Research Director and rapporteur Stanlake Samkange has proved to be an insightful reader and most supportive colleague; this volume bears his fingerprints, even if he would take issue with some of our interpretations.

Carolin Thielking played a principal role in preparation of the bibliography, with supervision from Neil MacFarlane at Oxford University. Kevin Ozgercin and Peter Hoffman, doctoral candidates from the Political Science Program at The CUNY Graduate Center, tirelessly furnished us with essential back-up research and criticism of arguments and prose; the volume would not have been possible without them.

Ken Berry, executive assistant to the two Co-Chairs, compiled the summaries of the roundtables and national consultations included in Part III on which we drew. The layout and presentation are our responsibility as primary authors. Such views as are expressed are not to be taken as those of ICISS; nor are they necessarily those of any of the contributors, or of the institutions that sponsored regional roundtables or national consultations. Sovereignty, intervention, and prevention are three essential elements of the contemporary debate on the use of coercive means to secure humanitarian objectives.

Each is covered by a separate essay in Section A , and particular attention is devoted to the relationship between them. Two of them, state sovereignty and intervention, are often assumed to be irreconcilable and contradictory. A fundamental question to be addressed in the pages that follow, then, is the extent and manner in which these two concepts are actually in tension. Essay 1, Sovereignty, approaches the concept of sovereignty from the perspective of law and politics.

By setting out the historical origins of the concept in international law and in state practice, it demonstrates that sovereignty remains a cornerstone of contemporary international relations but that the actual exercise of state sovereignty has always been more constrained and porous than the stark legal definition would imply.

The analysis illuminates the changing nature of the concept of sovereignty. Four challenges have appeared to the traditional and static conception of sovereignty: the increased salience of self-determination and the willingness to redraw borders, the ever-widening definition of threats to international peace and security, the recurring collapse of state authority, and the heightened importance attached to popular sovereignty.

Essay 2, Intervention, places the concept of intervention in historical context and examines it in light of both legal definitions and state practice. The norm of noninterference in internal affairs has lost ground. Activities that decades ago would have been conceived as interference are now widely acknowledged, if not accepted, as part of day-to-day politics. Nevertheless, the norm of nonintervention, where intervention is understood as the employment of coercive measures without the consent of the respective state, remains remarkably robust.

Three specific dimensions of nonconsensual coercion are examined — military enforcement, sanctions and embargoes, and international criminal prosecution — before concluding with an overview of the contemporary debate on humanitarian intervention. Essay 3, Prevention, deals with prevention as an integral part of this debate. Successful preventive efforts may obviate the need for coercion or at least reduce the need for robust military interventions and the human and financial costs that they entail. In the wake of a series of crises in the late s — particularly Rwanda, East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone — the United Nations and many member states have concluded that greater priority should be given to prevention.

Beyond their instrumental benefits, genuine preventive measures also increase the ultimate legitimacy of intervention when prevention fails. The text reviews the growing field of conflict prevention, identifies the various activities and initiatives included under the broad rubric of prevention, assesses the various conceptual distinctions along both thematic and temporal lines, and illuminates the challenges that at present appear to result in many words but little action.

State sovereignty has, for the past several hundred years, been a defining principle of interstate relations and a foundation of world order. The concept lies at the heart of both customary international law and the United Nations UN Charter and remains both an essential component of the maintenance of international peace and security and a defence of weak states against the strong.

At the same time, the concept has never been as inviolable, either in law or in practice, as a formal legal definition might imply. Empirically, sovereignty has routinely been violated by the powerful. In today's globalizing world, it is generally recognized that cultural, environmental, and economic influences neither respect borders nor require an entry visa. The concept of state sovereignty is well entrenched in legal and political discourse.

At the same time, territorial boundaries have come under stress and have diminished in significance as a result of contemporary international relations. Not only have technology and communications made borders permeable, but the political dimensions of internal disorder and suffering have also often resulted in greater international disorder. The purpose of this essay is to set out the scope and significance of state sovereignty as a foundation on which to explore contemporary debates on intervention. Students and scholars are aware of the enormous and contentious literature on this subject.

As one scholar has summarized,. Few subjects in international law and international relations are as sensitive as the notion of sovereignty. Steinberger refers to it in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law as "the most glittering and controversial notion in the history, doctrine and practice of international law. More affirmatively, Brownlie sees sovereignty as "the basic constitutional doctrine of the law of nations" and Alan James sees it as "the one and only organising principle in respect of the dry surface of the globe, all that surface now Nevertheless, a quick review of the basics is useful for less specialized readers.

The analysis begins with a review of the origins of the concept and its role in the evolution of state practice. This is followed by a discussion of the legal meaning of sovereignty and of its counterpart principle, nonintervention in domestic affairs. Together they comprise the fundamental bedrock of the contemporary international order. The widely acknowledged limits of state sovereignty are then examined, before turning to four contemporary challenges. State sovereignty denotes the competence, independence, and legal equality of states.

The concept is normally used to encompass all matters in which each state is permitted by international law to decide and act without intrusions from other sovereign states. These matters include the choice of political, economic, social, and cultural systems and the formulation of foreign policy. The scope of the freedom of choice of states in these matters is not unlimited; it depends on developments in international law including agreements made voluntarily and international relations.

The concept of sovereign rule dates back centuries in the context of regulated relationships and legal traditions among such disparate territorial entities as Egypt, China, and the Holy Roman Empire. However, the present foundations of international law with regard to sovereignty were shaped by agreements concluded by European states as part of the Treaties of Westphalia in They include three main requirements: a permanent population, a defined territory, and a functioning government. An important component of sovereignty has always been an adequate display of the authority of states to act over their territory to the exclusion of other states.

The post system of international order enshrined in the UN Charter inherited this basic model. Following decolonization, what had been a restrictive and eurocentric that is, Western order became global. There were no longer "insiders" and "outsiders" because virtually every person on Earth lived within a sovereign state. At the same time, the multiplication of numbers did not diminish the controversial character of sovereignty. In accordance with Article 2 1 of the UN Charter, the world organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all member states.

While they are equal in relation to one another, their status of legal equality as a mark of sovereignty is also the basis on which intergovernmental organizations are established and endowed with capacity to act between and within states to the extent permitted by the framework of an organization. In the International Court of Justice ICJ observed that "between independent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations.

As a hallmark of statehood, territorial sovereignty underlies the system of international order in relations among states. An act of aggression is unlawful, not only because it undermines international order, but also because states have exercised their sovereignty to outlaw war. In addition, the failure or weakening of state capacity that brings about a political vacuum within states leads to human tragedies and international and regional insecurity.

Repressive, aggressive, or collapsed states may result in threats to international peace and security. The principle of noninterference in affairs that are within the domestic jurisdiction of states is the anchor to state sovereignty within the system of international relations and obligations.

Jurisdiction broadly refers to the power, authority, and competence of a state to govern persons and property within its territory. It is labelled "prescriptive" and "enforcement. Jurisdiction exercised by states is then the corollary of their sovereignty. Jurisdiction is clearly founded on territorial sovereignty but extends beyond it. Jurisdiction is prima facie exclusive over a state's territory and population, and the general duty of nonintervention in domestic affairs protects both the territorial sovereignty and the domestic jurisdiction of states on an equal basis.

Within the Charter of the UN, there is an explicit prohibition on the world organization from interfering in the domestic affairs of member states. What may be the Charter's most frequently cited provision, Article 2 7 , provides that "[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

In sum, sovereignty is a key constitutional safeguard of international order. Despite the pluralization of international relations through the proliferation of nonstate actors — evidenced by an accelerated rate of economic globalization, democratization, and privatization worldwide — the state remains the fundamental guarantor of human rights locally, as well as the building block for collectively ensuring international order.

The equality in legal status of sovereignty also offers protection for weaker states in the face of pressure from the more powerful. This sentiment was captured by Algerian President Boueteflika, who, as President of the Organization for African Unity OAU , addressed the UN General Assembly in , immediately after the Secretary-General, and called sovereignty "our final defense against the rules of an unjust world. There are important and widely accepted limits to state sovereignty and to domestic jurisdiction in international law.

First, the Charter highlights the tension between the sovereignty, independence, and equality of individual states, on the one hand, and collective international obligations for the maintenance of international peace and security, on the other. And the status of sovereign equality only holds effectively for each state when there is stability, peace, and order among states. Second, state sovereignty may be limited by customary and treaty obligations in international relations and law. States are legally responsible for the performance of their international obligations, and state sovereignty therefore cannot be an excuse for their non-performance.

Obligations assumed by states by virtue of their membership in the UN and the corresponding powers of the world organization presuppose a restriction of the sovereignty of member states to the extent of their obligations under the Charter.

Specifically, Article 1 2 stipulates that "[a]ll Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. This article further recognizes the UN as a centre for harmonizing the actions of states in the attainment of these common ends. Thus, the Charter elevates the solution of economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems, as well as human rights, to the international sphere. By definition, these matters cannot be said to be exclusively domestic, and solutions cannot be located exclusively within the sovereignty of states.

Sovereignty therefore carries with it primary responsibilities for states to protect persons and property and to discharge the functions of government adequately within their territories.

Literature of Liberty, Autumn , vol. 3, No. 3 - Online Library of Liberty

The quality and range of responsibilities for governance have brought about significant changes in state sovereignty since In particular, since the signing of the UN Charter, there has been an expanding network of obligations in the field of human rights. These create a dense set of state obligations to protect persons and property, as well as to regulate political and economic affairs. Sovereignty is incapable, then, of completely shielding internal violations of human rights that contradict international obligations.

Similarly, Article 2 7 of the Charter is also subject to widely accepted limits. In the first place, this article is concerned chiefly with the limits of the UN as an organization. In the second place, the words " essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States" refer to those matters that are not regulated by international law.

As the ICJ has concluded, "[T]he question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the domestic jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends on the development of international relations. Sovereignty has been eroded by contemporary economic, cultural, and environmental factors. Interference in what would previously have been regarded as internal affairs — by other states, the private sector, and nonstate actors — has become routine. However, the preoccupation here is not these routine matters but the potential tension when the norm of state sovereignty and egregious human suffering coexist.

As Kofi Annan suggested, in his opening remarks at the General Assembly, "States bent on criminal behaviour [should] know that frontiers are not the absolute defence. The limits on sovereignty discussed above are widely accepted. They originate in the Charter itself, in authoritative legal interpretations of that document, and in the broader body of international law that has been agreed on by states.

In recent decades, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, four more radical challenges to the notion of state sovereignty have emerged: continuing demands for self-determination, a broadened conception of international peace and security, the collapse of state authority, and the increasing importance of popular sovereignty. In many ways, a central contemporary difficulty arises from the softening of two norms that had been virtually unchallenged during the Cold War, the sanctity of borders and the illegitimacy of secession.

For almost half a century, collective self-determination was limited to the initial process of decolonization. Existing borders were sacrosanct, and it was unthinkable that an area of a state would secede, even with the consent of the original state. The OAU's Charter was clear that colonial borders, although it is generally agreed that they were arbitrarily drawn, still had to be respected, or chaos would ensue. Uti possidetis, ita possideatis as you possess, so may you possess was accepted as the necessary trade-off for a modicum of international order.

At the end of the Cold War, however, these relatively clear waters became muddied. First, the Soviet Union became a "former superpower. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia broke up into 6 independent states. Later in the decade, Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia. That weakening of the norms relating to borders and secessions is creating new tensions. Contemporary politics in developing countries is deeply conditioned by the legacy of colonialism. As European states ruled so many Asian and African countries without their consent, respect for state sovereignty is the preemptive norm par excellence of ex-colonial states.

In light of history, it is difficult for representatives of developing countries to take at face value altruistic claims by the West. What may appear as narrow legalism — for instance, that Security Council authorization is a prerequisite for intervention — often appears in the South as a necessary buttress against new forms of imperialism.

The second challenge is the broadening interpretation of threats to international peace and security, the Charter-enshrined licence to override the principle of nonintervention. It arises from the fact that the Charter's collective system of international peace and security was crafted on the experience of the Second World War, some of which is of doubtful contemporary relevance.

The focus was principally on the external unlawful use of sovereignty by states in committing acts of aggression. Collective efforts by the UN to deal with internal problems of peace and security, and gross violations of human rights, including genocide, have therefore run against the grain of the claim to sovereign status as set out in the Charter. State actions approved or authorized after the Cold War's end by the Security Council have routinely broadened the notion of what is considered a threat to international peace and security.

This process actually began during the Cold War with the Security Council's coercive decisions in the form of economic sanctions and arms and oil embargoes against apartheid in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. In both cases, the Security Council described the recourse to Chapter VII action as a response to "threats to international peace and security. An affront to civilization was packaged as a threat to international peace and security in order to permit action.

The evolution of the definition of a threat to international peace and security accelerated in the s. For instance, while recalling Article 2 7 of the Charter, the Security Council, in Resolution , nonetheless condemned "the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas. It has reaffirmed that persons who commit or order the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols are individually responsible in respect of such breaches.

The main interventions of the s were justified, at least in part, on humanitarian grounds, though again the humanitarian dimensions were framed as threats to international peace and security. In most cases, the dire humanitarian situation was explicitly mentioned in the Security Council's authorization — the most extreme case being Somalia, where "humanitarian" appeared 18 times in Resolution In short, the range of interpretations of international peace and security — the concept that defines the Security Council's mandate — has been substantially broadened, albeit not without controversy.

The third challenge to traditional interpretations of state sovereignty has arisen because of the incapacity of certain states to effectively exercise authority over their territories and populations. In some cases, sovereignty is a legal fiction not matched by an actual political capacity. They are, in the words of one analyst, "quasi-states. Some commentators have even argued that failed states violate the substantive UN membership requirement in Charter Article 4 that they "are able to carry out" their obligations.

This perspective is important in light of the growing awareness that state capacity and authority are essential conditions for the protection of fundamental rights. These conditions do not invoke nostalgia for repressive national-security states, but they recognize that a modicum of state authority and capacity is a prerequisite for the maintenance of domestic and international order and justice. The absence or disappearance of a functioning government can lead to the same kinds of human catastrophe as the presence of a repressive state or the outbreak of a deadly civil war.

Resounding features of these so-called failed states are anarchy, chronic disorder, and civil war waged without regard for the laws of armed conflict. These features, individually or collectively, inhibit or prevent a state from acting with authority over its entire territory. The failure of state sovereignty is most obviously evidenced by the lack of control where territorial sovereignty is effectively contested by force internally. In this situation, insurgents may occupy and control large portions of the territory, inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility to protect lives and property and maintain public security.

The political vacuum resulting from these circumstances leads to nonstate actors' taking matters into their own hands, the massive flight of refugees, and the forced displacement of populations. These issues also create consequences of concern to other states, international organizations, and civil society. In lending support to the intervention by the Economic Community of West African States in Liberia, Zimbabwe went so far as to take the position that "when there is no government in being and there is just chaos in the country," domestic affairs should be qualified as meaning "affairs within a peaceful environment.

The grave humanitarian consequences of the failure of state capacity has led the Security Council to override state sovereignty by determining that internal disorder may pose a threat to international peace and security. In one case in particular, Somalia, the complete absence of state capacity prompted the Security Council to authorize a Chapter VII intervention. The fourth challenge to traditional state sovereignty emerges from the changing balance between states and people as the source of legitimacy and authority.

The older version of the rule of the law of states is being tempered by the rule of law based on the rights of individuals. And a broader concept of sovereignty, encompassing both the rights and the responsibilities of states, is now being more widely advocated. One formulation has been proposed by Kofi Annan in his widely cited article in The Economist on the "two concepts of sovereignty," which helped launch the intense debate on the legitimacy of intervention on humanitarian grounds. In it he argued that one concept of sovereignty is oriented around states and the other around people:.

State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined — not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty — by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the Charter of the UN and subsequent international treaties — has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights.

Export: Choose a format.. The value of solidarity, which is exemplified in noble groups like the Civil Rights Movement along with more mundane teams, families and marriages, is distinctive in part because people are in solidarity over, for or with regard to something, such as common sympathies, interests, values, etc. I argue that when we are in a certain kind of solidarity with others, united by social moral rules that we have established among ourselves, the rules we have developed and maintain are a constitutive part of our solidary relationships with one another; and it is part of being in this sort of solidarity with our comrades that we are presumptively required to follow the social moral rules that join us together.

Those in the Polish Revolution, for example, were bound by informally enforced rules about publicity, free speech and the use of violence, so following their own rules became a way of standing in a valuable sort of solidarity with one another. I explain why we can have non-instrumental reasons to follow the social moral rules that exist in our own society, improve our rules and even sometimes to break the otherwise good rules that help to unite us. Normative Ethics, Misc in Normative Ethics. Political Concepts in Social and Political Philosophy.

Political Theory in Social and Political Philosophy. Direct download 8 more. In Intricate Ethics, Kamm questions the moral importance of some non-consequentialist distinctions and then introduces and argues for the moral importance of Ethics in Value Theory, Miscellaneous. Rights in Social and Political Philosophy. The popularity of rule-consequentialism among philosophers has waxed and waned.

Waned, mostly; at least lately. The idea that the morality that ought to claim allegiance is the ideal code of rules whose acceptance by everybody would bring about best consequences became the object of careful analysis about half a century ago, in the writings of J. In the eyes of many, the flaws were decisive. Brad Hooker has produced brilliant work that unsettles this complacent consensus. He acknowledges intellectual debts to Richard Brandt.

Moreover, Hooker has worked to articulate a version of rule consequentialism in sufficient detail that one can see how the different parts of the doctrine hang together and how the best version of the.. Act- and Rule-Consequentalism in Normative Ethics. Direct download 7 more.

Humanitarian Intervention

The Concept of Law is the most important and original work of legal philosophy written this century. First published in , it is considered the masterpiece of H. Hart's enormous contribution to the study of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. Its elegant language and balanced arguments have sparked wide debate and unprecedented growth in the quantity and quality of scholarship in this area--much of it devoted to attacking or defending Hart's theories.

Principal among Hart's critics is renowned lawyer and political philosopher Ronald Dworkin who in the s and 80s mounted a series of challenges to Hart's Concept of Law. It seemed that Hart let these challenges go unanswered until, after his death in , his answer to Dworkin's criticism was discovered among his papers. In this valuable and long-awaited new edition Hart presents an Epilogue in which he answers Dworkin and some of his other most influential critics including Fuller and Finnis.

Written with the same clarity and candor for which the first edition is famous, the Epilogue offers a sharper interpretation of Hart's own views, rebuffs the arguments of critics like Dworkin, and powerfully asserts that they have based their criticisms on a faulty understanding of Hart's work. Hart demonstrates that Dworkin's views are in fact strikingly similar to his own. In a final analysis, Hart's response leaves Dworkin's criticisms considerably weakened and his positions largely in question.

Containing Hart's final and powerful response to Dworkin in addition to the revised text of the original Concept of Law, this thought-provoking and persuasively argued volume is essential reading for lawyers and philosophers throughout the world. In this book, T. Scanlon offers new answers to these questions, as they apply to the central part of morality that concerns what we owe to each other. Moral Contractualism in Normative Ethics. Reasons and Rationality in Philosophy of Action. Subjective and Objective Reasons in Philosophy of Action.

This is a major work in moral philosophy, the long-awaited follow-up to Parfit's classic Reasons and Persons, a landmark of twentieth-century philosophy. Parfit now presents a powerful new treatment of reasons and a critical examination of the most prominent systematic moral theories, leading to his own ground-breaking conclusion. Henry Sidgwick in 19th Century Philosophy. Personal Identity and Values in Metaphysics. What Matters in Survival in Metaphysics. Moral Judgment, Misc in Meta-Ethics. Direct download 3 more. Virtue ethics is perhaps the most important development within late twentieth-century moral philosophy.

Rosalind Hursthouse, who has made notable contributions to this development, here presents a full exposition and defense of her neo-Aristotelian version of virtue ethics. She shows how virtue ethics can provide guidance for action, illuminate moral dilemmas, and bring out the moral significance of the emotions. Moral Naturalism in Meta-Ethics. Objections to Virtue Ethics in Normative Ethics. Topics in Virtue Ethics in Normative Ethics. Varieties of Virtue Ethics in Normative Ethics.

This book offers the fullest and most sophisticated account of Gert's influential moral theory, a model first articulated in the classic work The Moral Rules: A New Rational Foundation for Morality, published in In this final revision, Gert makes clear that the moral rules are only one part of an informal system that does not provide unique answers to every moral question but does always provide a range of morally acceptable options.

A new chapter on reasons includes an account Moral impartiality, the moral ideals, and virtue and vice, are all treated in greater detail. Throughout, Gert attempts to answer all of the challenges that his work has provoked. Moral Justification in Meta-Ethics. Moral Cognitivism in Meta-Ethics.

Direct download 6 more. Value Theory. Direct download. Value Theory, Miscellaneous. Direct download 4 more. The generalization test Utilitarianism in Normative Ethics. This is the first publication of these ideas in book form. Philosophy of Law. Reissued here in its corrected second edition of , this essay by John Stuart Mill argues for a utilitarian theory of morality. Originally printed as a series of three articles in Fraser's Magazine in , the work sought to refine the 'greatest happiness' principle that had been championed by Jeremy Bentham, defending it from common criticisms, and offering a justification of its validity.

Following Bentham, Mill holds that actions can be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they promote Although attracted by Bentham's consequentialist framework based on empirical evidence rather than intuition, Mill separates happiness into 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures, arguing for a weighted system of measurement when making and judging decisions. Dissected and debated since its first appearance, the essay is Mill's key discussion on the topic and remains a fundamental text in the study of ethics.

Jeremy Bentham in 19th Century Philosophy. John Stuart Mill in 19th Century Philosophy. Thomas E. Hill, Jr. He introduces the major themes of Kantian ethics and explores its practical application to questions about revolution, prison reform, and forcible interventions in other countries for humanitarian purposes. Direct download 5 more. A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume's comprehensive attempt to base philosophy on a new, observationally grounded study of human nature, is one of the most important texts in Western philosophy. It is also the focal point of current attempts to understand 18th-century western philosophy.

The Treatise addresses many of the most fundamental philosophical issues: causation, existence, freedom and necessity, and morality. The volume also includes Humes own abstract of the Treatise, a substantial introduction, extensive annotations, a glossary, a comprehensive