Jovana Davidovic. The frequency of humanitarian military inierventions and the invocation of humanitarian intent in wars of tne last few decades have been so overwhelming that we, as a society, must attempt to deal with the issues surrounding these topics. Just war analysis, unlike realism or pacifism embraces the relationship between morality and war that is exemplified in the idea of humanitarian military interventions Much of the concerns arising from the acceptance of just war theory develop around the misguided rheteric used to justify wars in the name of hunianism or beneficence. If the just war approach to humanitarian interventions is to be defended. This framework must be built both on theoretical and practical grounds, since the dialectical relationship between the two is the essence of understanding right intentions In terms of theory, only humanitarian intent inspired by humanitarian motivations can be sufficient for a just intervention. No other single intent or any other mixture of intents or motivations can prompt, be sufficient or give rise to a just intervention.
THE LEGALITY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
"The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention" by Amanda J. Porter
The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention. Amanda J. This thesis investigates ethical debates that surround the definition, the conduct, and the occasions for humanitarian military intervention. I argue that properly-called humanitarian interventions must be directed by partly-altruistic intentions, and just war theorists should resist the emerging trend that discards right intention as a central requirement in favour of a more consequentialist analysis. I argue that interventions must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the humanitarian purpose and would be accepted by the innocent non-combatants who are themselves risked by the rescue effort. In the end, I contend that the justified occasions for full-scale intervention will tend to be restricted to cases of mass-atrocities.
The most controversial issue in contemporary US foreign policy debate is the question of American participation in humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention, for the purposes of this debate, is defined as military intervention for the purpose of saving lives in the face of gross human rights violations when there is no obvious, tangible national interest at stake. The missing element is a substantive discussion of the moral component of foreign policy. Our current political leaders have inadequately addressed the tension between morality and self-interest. Several philosophies come to mind: the Judeo-Christian ethic of charity, the rights-based morality embodied in our democratic government, and Ethical Humanism.
The central argument of this thesis is that humanitarian military intervention will inevitably change or destabilize the political and security dynamics within the theatre it enters, and, in turn, will impact upon the relative strength of the host regime. To analyze the nature of this destabilization, the thesis offers a new tool: the Regime Destabilization Framework. And, to what extent do the specific military actions within humanitarian military interventions challenge those factors? The framework seeks to demonstrate the specific impacts on military actions on the power dynamics within the target state, and in turn, on the stability of the host regime.