Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWhitman, Jim R.*
dc.date.accessioned2009-05-18T15:49:18Z
dc.date.available2009-05-18T15:49:18Z
dc.date.issued2009-05-18T15:49:18Z
dc.identifier.citationWhitman, J. R.(2005).Humanitarian Intervention in an Era of Pre-emptive Self -Defense. Security Dialogue, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 259-274.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/2663
dc.descriptionNoen
dc.description.abstractThe dichotomy between prohibitive law and moral responsibility is at the centre of debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, political interests remain an important factor not only in determining and tempering the humanitarian impulses of states, but also for gauging their more general adherence to the rule of law. The humanitarian intervention debate only has meaning in a context in which there is general, routine adherence to the non-interventionist norm of the international system, codified as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The `Bush Doctrine¿ of pre-emptive self-defence alters the political and politico-legal context that has until now given the humanitarian intervention debate its meaning and importance. Given this, together with a more general loosening of the strictures prohibiting or limiting the use of force, there is good cause for concern about the foundations of the post-1945 international order. The debate about humanitarian intervention can no longer abstract the tension between law and morality from a political arena that is facing such profound challenges.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectHumanitarian interventionen
dc.subjectBush Doctrineen
dc.subjectPre-emptive self-defenceen
dc.subjectArticle 2(4en
dc.subjectNational Security Strategyen
dc.titleHumanitarian Intervention in an Era of Pre-emptive Self -Defenseen
dc.status.refereedYesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.type.versionnot applicable paperen
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0967010605056984


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record