Abstract
Our contemporary world presents us with a steady array of undeniable expressions of common inhumanity, confirming the notion of common humanity by negative example. Ironically, the conditions that most urgently lead to calls for international intervention expose the fragmented nature of human solidarity and the attendant frailty of notions of universal moral obligation based on the idea of common humanity. In the face of widespread human suffering caused by various kinds of intrastate violent conflict, state repression or political incompetence leading to state failure, who has a moral obligation to respond? And what do they have as an obligation to do? A cosmopolitan conception of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ clearly obligates sovereigns to be agents of the domestic public good. When they fail to provide basic public goods such as security, subsistence and justice within their borders, and when domestic accountability systems are inadequate or incompetent, a cosmopolitan view of global order obligates the society of states, as well as the larger global civil society, to call sovereign power to account, and to intervene to alleviate the human suffering caused by the neglect, breakdown or abuse of sovereign power. From a cosmopolitan moral view, then, it is not just domestic or international political leaders who have moral responsibilities to respond to situations of politically induced humanitarian disaster — we all do, in our various individual, collective and institutional capacities.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
It has been quite rightly said that suffering, like light, knows no national boundaries.
Cornelio Sommargua, Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention1
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.
George W. Bush, The New York Times2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
C. Sommaruga, ‘Foreword,’ in Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention, J. Moore ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), p. ix.
O. Ramsbotham and T. Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict: A Reconceptualization (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), p. 226.
See also L. Minear and T. Weiss, Humanitarian Action in Times of War (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1993).
see A. Roberts, Humanitarian Action in War: Aid, Protection and Impartiality in a Policy Vacuum (Oxford: Oxford University Press for The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1996), pp. 33–34.
See F. Terry, Condemned to Repeat?: The Paradox of Humanitarian Action (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002).
See A. Ryan, ‘Liberalism,’ in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, R.E. Goodin and P. Pettit eds (UK: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 291–311.
Swanson, The Public and the Private in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 3.
See Robert F. Worth, ‘An American Aid Worker Is Killed in Her Line of Duty,’ The New York Times, 18 April 2005.
R.A. Dallaire, ‘The Changing Role of UN Peacekeeping Forces: The Relationship between UN Peacekeepers and NGOs in Rwanda,’ in After Rwanda: The Coordination of United Nations Humanitarian Assistance, J. Whitman and D. Popock eds (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), p. 207.
See W. Hoge, 10,000 Peacekeepers to be Sent to Sudan, U.N. Council Decides,’ The New York Times, 25 March 2005.
M. Ignatieff, The Warrior’s Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience (Viking Press, 1997), p. 158.
H. Slim, ‘By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Nongovernmental Organisations,’ Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, March 2002. [http://www.jha.ac/articles/a082.htm].
SPHERE, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (Oxfam, 2000).
ALNAP, Humanitarian Action: Learning from Evaluation (London, 2001).
HAP Project, Humanitarian Accountability: Key Elements and Operational Framework (Geneva, 2001).
J.N. Shklar, Ordinary Vices (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 39.
See J. Randel and T. German, ‘Trends in the Financing of Humanitarian Assistance,’ in The New Humanitarianism: A Review of Trends in Global Humanitarian Action, Joanne McRae ed. (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2002), pp. 12–28.
Legitimacy Challenges for Humanitarian Intervention,’ in Humanitarian Intervention, Nomos XLVII, T. Nardin and M.S. Williams eds (New York: New York University Press, 2005), pp. 188–216.
See J. Brunnée and S. Toope, ‘Slouching Towards New “Just” Wars: The Hegemon After September 11th,’ International Relations, 18, 4 (2004) 406.
see J.N. Shklar, Legalism: Law, Morals and Political Trials, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
See T. Franck, ‘Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention,’ in Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, ed. J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane eds (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 204–231 at p. 204.
T. Franck, ‘Legality and Legitimacy in Humanitarian Intervention,’ in Nomos: Humanitarian Intervention, T. Nardin and M. Williams eds (New York: New York University Press, 2005).
See W. Hoge, ‘U.N. Votes to Send Any Sudan War Crime Suspects to World Court,’ The New York Times, 1 April 2005.
A. Roberts, ‘Humanitarian Issues and Agencies as Triggers for International Military Action,’ in Civilians in War, S. Chesterman ed. (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2001), pp. 177–196.
See N. Thompson, ‘Adopt-a-Peacekeeper,’ The Boston Globe, 6 March 2005.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001), p. xii.
N.J. Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 206.
R. Dallaire with B. Beardsley, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2003), pp. 515–516.
J. Tirman, ‘The New Humanitarianism: How Military Intervention became the Norm,’ Boston Review, 28, 6 (December 2003/January 2004). http://bostonreview.net/BR28.6/tirman.html.
See Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis; Dallaire, Shake Hands With the Devil; M. Mamdani, When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
M. Barnett, Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2006 Catherine Lu
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lu, C. (2006). Cosmopolitan Humanitarianism and the Use of Force. In: Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics. Global Issues Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299542_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299542_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-28565-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29954-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)