Who should pay for humanitarian intervention?

Abstract

<jats:p> While some suggestions have been made as to how the duty to undertake humanitarian intervention should be assigned to specific states, the question of how to assign the duty to carry the economic and material costs remains underexplored. In this paper, I argue that the most plausible answer to this question is found in a pluralist approach. First, we should look to the Contribution to Problem Principle, according to which the costs are shared based on the historical responsibility of states for the occurrence of atrocities. For the many cases where this principle does not apply or needs to be supplemented, I suggest a novel alternative in the Entitlement-adjusted Ability Principle, according to which costs should be distributed based on states' levels of resources that have been tainted by historical rights violations. </jats:p>

Humanitarian Intervention and Burden-Sharing Justice

“…31 From the point of view of distributive fairness, the central advantage of full institutionalisation is that it would allow the distribution of the burdens of intervention 30 For further discussion of decision-making and accountability in this context, see (Buchanan and Keohane, 2004). 31 On which, see (Hjorthen, 2017b). without running into the effectiveness objection.…”

The Benefits of Injustice and Its Correction: A Challenge to the Duty Not to Benefit Innocently from Injustice*

“…However, these claims could be justified on other grounds. 8 For previous challenges, see Hjorthen 2017;Huseby 2015;Knight 2013;Lindstad 2020; Lippert-Rasmussen 2017.…”

Who Should Intervene?

“…8 For discussion of how the duty to bear the economic burden of humanitarian intervention should be distributed among states, see e.g. (Fabre 2012, p. 191;Hjorthen 2017). 9 It could be argued that the criterion of representativeness is sensitive to history, albeit indirectly, through people's opinions about the intervention and the intervener.…”