In the glare of an ever-present and far-reaching news cycle, decisions to engage in war are of paramount concern to a state. Given this greater accountability, there is perhaps an even stronger emphasis for states to have sound moral reasoning in its actions leading to and during war. Some would argue that there is no room for justice in war. According to realists, wars are fought on the basis of power and security issues; “the pursuit of lesser national interests rarely justifies war” (Morkevičius 2015, p. 20). Pacifists, on the other hand, contend that there is no justice in war as war in itself is inherently bad for it requires not only violence but also the high probability of killing. This essay will focus on the more prominent concept
…show more content…
There are issues arising around proportionality, how much force should a state be willing to use to protect the rights of individuals in a foreign land? Should a state risk the lives of its soldiers for this cause? It is worth noting here that there is a contradictory nature in humanitarian intervention. By intervening to try to protect rights, rights are violated. Because of this, it is not plausible that intervening wars are a useful tool to promote rights in a foreign country (Norman 2013). However, Walzer suggests that such wars are beneficial given that “all states have an interest in global stability and global humanity” (2004, p. 74). For Caney (2005), the probability of success principle is a major underpinning for the case of humanitarian intervention. If intervention is unlikely to succeed, which is most often the case, there is no point for it despite Walzer’s claims of its worthiness. There are also issues surrounding the jus ad bellum principle of right intent. Many decisions to undertake interventionist wars are not …show more content…
When these justifications were contested, advocates appealed to the justification that the intervention was to protect the Iraqis themselves from human rights violations (Norman 2013). Fiala goes further and asserts that given weapons of mass destruction were not found, the real intention behind the Bush doctrine was based on a “broader geopolitical cause to disseminate democracy and transform the globe according to... liberal-democratic principles…” (2008, p. 50). There is a belief that the Iraq invasion has changed the landscape for interventionist wars. It is now seemingly permissible to launch humanitarian intervention wars with an underlying secondary intent such as to remove a tyrant and force regime change. This is arguably what occurred in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. Not only does this contradict the notion of state sovereignty but also several just war principles. On the other hand, if humanitarian intervention were permissible as a just cause to war, perhaps the removal of a head of state and regime change can be seen as step that is proportional and necessary for the protection of individuals in that
There are issues arising around proportionality, how much force should a state be willing to use to protect the rights of individuals in a foreign land? Should a state risk the lives of its soldiers for this cause? It is worth noting here that there is a contradictory nature in humanitarian intervention. By intervening to try to protect rights, rights are violated. Because of this, it is not plausible that intervening wars are a useful tool to promote rights in a foreign country (Norman 2013). However, Walzer suggests that such wars are beneficial given that “all states have an interest in global stability and global humanity” (2004, p. 74). For Caney (2005), the probability of success principle is a major underpinning for the case of humanitarian intervention. If intervention is unlikely to succeed, which is most often the case, there is no point for it despite Walzer’s claims of its worthiness. There are also issues surrounding the jus ad bellum principle of right intent. Many decisions to undertake interventionist wars are not …show more content…
When these justifications were contested, advocates appealed to the justification that the intervention was to protect the Iraqis themselves from human rights violations (Norman 2013). Fiala goes further and asserts that given weapons of mass destruction were not found, the real intention behind the Bush doctrine was based on a “broader geopolitical cause to disseminate democracy and transform the globe according to... liberal-democratic principles…” (2008, p. 50). There is a belief that the Iraq invasion has changed the landscape for interventionist wars. It is now seemingly permissible to launch humanitarian intervention wars with an underlying secondary intent such as to remove a tyrant and force regime change. This is arguably what occurred in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. Not only does this contradict the notion of state sovereignty but also several just war principles. On the other hand, if humanitarian intervention were permissible as a just cause to war, perhaps the removal of a head of state and regime change can be seen as step that is proportional and necessary for the protection of individuals in that