This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bellamy, A. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ethics and Intervention: the ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq

School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland a.bellamy{at}mailbox.uq.edu.au

This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral reasoning on issues of war and peace. To that end, after briefly discussing the two primary legal justifications for war (implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defence), and finding them wanting, it asks whether there is a moral ‘humanitarian exception’ to this rule grounded in the ‘just war’ tradition. The article argues that two aspects of the broad tradition could be used to make a humanitarian case for war: the ‘holy war’ tradition and classical just war thinking based on natural law. The former it finds problematic, while the latter it argues provides a moral space to justify the use of force to halt gross breaches of natural law. Although such an approach may provide a moral justification for war, it also opens the door to abuse. It was this very problem that legal positivism from Vattel onwards was designed to address. As a result, the article argues that natural law and legal positivist arguments should be understood as complementary sets of ideas whose sometimes competing claims must be balanced in relation to particular cases. Therefore, although natural law may open a space for justifying the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms, legal positivism strictly limits that right. Ignoring this latter fact, as happened in the Iraq case, opens the door to abuse.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 2, 131-147 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343304041777


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. R. Banta Just War Theory and the 2003 Iraq War Forced Displacement Journal of Refugee Studies, September 1, 2008; 21(3): 261 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Williams and A. J. Bellamy The Responsibility To Protect and the Crisis in Darfur Security Dialogue, March 1, 2005; 36(1): 27 - 47. [Abstract] [PDF]