État des savoirs et pistes de recherche sur la violence politique
Why Intervene ? The Just Cause Criterion in the Theory of Armed Humanitarian Intervention In general, the humanitarian justification for military intervention adopts the criteria of traditional just war doctrine : just cause, legitimate authority, good intentions, positive effect, last recourse...
Guardat en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Français |
| Publicat: |
2012
|
| Accés en línia: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Sumari: | Why Intervene ? The Just Cause Criterion in the Theory of Armed Humanitarian Intervention In general, the humanitarian justification for military intervention adopts the criteria of traditional just war doctrine : just cause, legitimate authority, good intentions, positive effect, last recourse and proportionality. There are at least three ways of approaching the first of these criteria, that of just cause. Some authors formulate it in terms of rights : since humanitarian intervention is defined as aiming to prevent or put an end to massive violations of human rights, determining the just cause is ultimately a matter of stating what rights are in question. Most authors formulate this in terms of acts of violence : they prepare a list of crimes that in their view constitute just causes of intervention. The third approach consists of phrasing the question in terms of harm, without necessarily specifying what rights have been violated or what crimes have caused harm. This position falls within the framework of a consequentialist perspective. |
|---|