A Duty to Prevent

Feinstein, Lee

doi:10.1017/s0272503700060869

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…73 In a recent contribution with Lee Feinstein, Slaughter echoed Buchanan and Keohane's cosmopolitan premise, arguing: 'Whether individuals are targeted for execution over time or vaporized in a single instant [by WMD], the result is the same: a massive and senseless loss of life'. 74 However, for Feinstein and Slaughter this point serves mainly as support for the argument that the ICISS proposal of a 'responsibility to protect' should be emulated in the WMD context through a 'duty to prevent'. 75 Their primary concern is to address new security threats that are said to have emerged since 11 September 2001.…”

Section: Humanitarian Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: The Hegemon after September 11th

Brunnée

Toope

2004

International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twentieth-century international law was in large part a struggle to reduce the evil of war by codifying a restrictive doctrine of 'just war'. The US Administration under George W. Bush has made concerted efforts to resurrect an expansive doctrine of just war: one rooted in broad moral, rather than restrictive legal, assessments of threats and punishments. Existing rules ask us to pause and inquire whether war is necessary and just. The debate over Iraq laid bare failings in these rules, requiring action. Yet the need to limit resort to war is as great as ever. Legal rules cannot prevent the use of force; nor can they prevent violations that states perceive to be in their fundamental interests. Rather, international law provides a framework against which states' actions are assessed, and imposes a heavy burden of justification. International law requires more specific, testable claims than can be offered by the rhetoric of evil.

show abstract

Section: Humanitarian Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, WMD threats are 'gravest when the states pursuing WMD are closed societies headed by rulers who menace their own citizens as much as they do their neighbours and potential adversaries'. 78 According to Feinstein and Slaughter:…”

Section: Humanitarian Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: The Hegemon after September 11th

Brunnée

Toope

2004

International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…102 In its most extreme form, this discourse hence calls for a more explicit focus on conditional equality and exclusion, with the reintroduction of differentiated legal codes and zones, and ultimately the possibility of (preventive) forceful interventions to discipline those who are not equally sovereign in the liberal fashion. 103 However, as has been shown by numerous studies on global governmentality, the norm of liberal international statehood also underlines mundane policies on aid conditionality, good governance, democratic peace, and the Washington consensus, as advocated by the major global governing institutions, to produce visible, responsible and predictable actors. It informs the numerous indices of state performances and governance indicators, on the basis of which failed states are identified and policies for their transformation, development and management are written, using mechanisms of more indirect rule and discipline, such as the production and review of country reports, providing technical assistance, and disseminating best practices.…”

Section: Globalisation Of International Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the Principle of (Sovereign) Equality as a Standard of Civilisation

Aalberts¹

2014

Millennium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard of civilisation is most often identified as the infamous legal doctrine that legitimised imperialist rule and the exclusion of non-European non-Christian states from the international society. In disciplinary narratives of both International Relations and International Law this colonial project is usually presented as a mere interlude on the way to a mature and inclusive international society based sovereign equality as its organising principle. In line with more critical historiography, which shows how colonialism is the condition of possibility for both sovereignty and international law, this article investigates how a standard of civilisation is inherent in political legal practices of international ordering. Moreover, while usually presented as a practice of exclusion, this article will analyse the more intricate dynamic of inclusion and exclusion as a basis for international order by addressing the legal politics of subjecthood (as objects and subjects of the imagined global regime). More specifically, it will address how law operates as a technology through the interplay between a standard of civilisation, the principle of equality and legal subjectivity. The article will look into legal practices of different historical periods (in the age of discovery, during the colonial expansion, and in modern international society) to analyse the workings and transformations of these legal technologies. Together this will show how an (implicit) standard of civilisation is entrenched in the operation of law as a technology of international order. This does not stop with the universalisation of sovereign equality as the organising principle of an inclusive or 'global' international society. This article will argue that this reveals the productive power of law which functions not just as a juridical rule to regulate relations between independent and equal sovereign subjects, but operates as the norm to produce appropriate sovereigns as members of the international society.

show abstract

“…They use R2P as a springboard to a corollary 'duty to prevent' the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which 'extrapolates from recent developments in the law of intervention for humanitarian purposes'. 35 Meanwhile, Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane are calling for the 'cosmopolitan' use of preventive military force in Ethics and International Affairs. 36 While the latter emphasizes international organizations, the link between humanitarian intervention and the authorization of force against Iraq prevents any detached consideration.…”

Section: Cosmopolitan Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roundtable: Humanitarian Intervention After 9/11

Farer

Archibugi²,

Brown³

et al. 2005

International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tom Farer opens the roundtable by outlining a five-part test for legitimate humanitarian intervention and questioning the utility of the term 'cosmopolitan' in this context. Five responses are offered. Daniele Archibugi highlights the problem of legitimate authority for intervention and offers a separate four-stage process which he believes contributes to institutionalizing cosmopolitanism. Chris Brown questions the value of creating a set of criteria to help policymakers balance the competing moral intuitions surrounding humanitarian intervention. Neta Crawford problematizes the threshold for interventions and argues for a reappraisal of transitional administrations and the idea of global interconnectedness generally. Thomas Weiss defends cosmopolitan force and cautions that the real problem is not to be found in the lack of guidelines but instead in the lack of political will to motivate humanitarian interventions, though he warns against the increasing use of cosmopolitan arguments as a cover for pre-emptive warfare. After examining the role of motives and the 'spike test' in Farer's criteria, Nicholas Wheeler emphasizes the central legitimating role of the UN Security Council in humanitarian intervention. The roundtable concludes with a set of responses by Farer to these arguments. His theme is that the chronic violation of human rights requires a reconception of the national interest and international systems of cooperation; this goal is something that 9/11 might have inadvertently encouraged by bringing together humanitarianism and national security more explicitly than hitherto.

show abstract

A Duty to Prevent

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: The Hegemon after September 11th

Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: The Hegemon after September 11th

Rethinking the Principle of (Sovereign) Equality as a Standard of Civilisation

Roundtable: Humanitarian Intervention After 9/11

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About