Humanitarian intervention involves the use of military force to protect innocent people within a state from violence committed or condoned by its government. Presupposing an international framework predicated on the sovereign equality of states, it is commonly treated as an exception to the non-interventions principle, according to which the exercise of authority by one state within the jurisdiction of another is impermissible.
The concern here is that states might use humanitarian concern as a pretext for interfering in the domestic affairs of another state. This ambiguity pits the virtues of humanitarian rescue against the horror of having expanded opportunities for aggressive war and questions both the moral and political authenticity of …show more content…
Forcefully intervening to thwart or remove this hindrance to freedom experienced by the local community vindicates freedom by coercively impeding its hindrance and must therefore be considered as concordant with the principles of right and justice. Holding on to the position that states are motivated only by self-interest, the cynic or realist might respond that this justification for humanitarian intervention is problematic at its core. Stripping away the pretensions of altruism, humanitarian interventions can be seen to be essentially motivated by the morally vacant or immoral instruction of personal gain. To justify intervention on moral grounds when it is in fact motivated by immoral or amoral concerns forwards the impression of inconsistency and incoherence. This harsh assessment neglects, however, the distinction between the doctrine of right and the doctrine of virtue. The only object of right in general is the external aspect of actions, right in its strict sense, i.e. right unmixed with any ethical considerations, requires no determinants of the will apart from purely external ones. The just quality of an action does not have to coincide with the moral character of the agent performing that action for the action to be recognized as just. Neither does the just quality of an action depend on the
The concern here is that states might use humanitarian concern as a pretext for interfering in the domestic affairs of another state. This ambiguity pits the virtues of humanitarian rescue against the horror of having expanded opportunities for aggressive war and questions both the moral and political authenticity of …show more content…
Forcefully intervening to thwart or remove this hindrance to freedom experienced by the local community vindicates freedom by coercively impeding its hindrance and must therefore be considered as concordant with the principles of right and justice. Holding on to the position that states are motivated only by self-interest, the cynic or realist might respond that this justification for humanitarian intervention is problematic at its core. Stripping away the pretensions of altruism, humanitarian interventions can be seen to be essentially motivated by the morally vacant or immoral instruction of personal gain. To justify intervention on moral grounds when it is in fact motivated by immoral or amoral concerns forwards the impression of inconsistency and incoherence. This harsh assessment neglects, however, the distinction between the doctrine of right and the doctrine of virtue. The only object of right in general is the external aspect of actions, right in its strict sense, i.e. right unmixed with any ethical considerations, requires no determinants of the will apart from purely external ones. The just quality of an action does not have to coincide with the moral character of the agent performing that action for the action to be recognized as just. Neither does the just quality of an action depend on the