1,720,974 research outputs found
Debating Humanitarian Intervention
No full textThe book offers contrasting views of humanitarian intervention—a war aimed at ending tyranny or violence. Fernando Tesón argues that humanitarian interventions are sometimes permissible; Bas van der Vossen argues that as a rule they are not. The authors use the tools of modern analytic philosophy, in particular just war theory, to substantiate their claims. According to Tesón, a humanitarian intervention has the same just cause as a justified revolution: ending tyranny. He analyzes the different kinds of just cause and whether or not an intervener may pursue other justified causes. For Tesón, the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is almost exclusively determined by the rules of proportionality. Bas van der Vossen, by contrast, holds that military intervention is morally impermissible in almost all cases. Justified interventions, van der Vossen argues, must have high ex ante chance of success. Analyzing the history and prospects of intervention shows that they almost never do.</p
Self-Defense under Uncertainty
No full texttime: 2:30 pm – 4:30 pmroom: Osgoode, IKB 4034speaker: Bas van der Vossen (University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Self-Defense under Uncertainty
No full texttime: 2:30 pm – 4:30 pmroom: Osgoode, IKB 4034speaker: Bas van der Vossen (University of North Carolina, Greensboro
A Presumption Against Intervention
No full textThis introductory chapter offers an outline of the argument I develop in this part of the book. It identifies the morality of intervention as something that should strike a balance between two kinds of threats to people’s rights and safety: threats from within and threats from without a society. Striking this balance, I argue, means accepting a presumption against intervention. Finally, this presumption is contrasted with its main rival, the interventionist view defended by Tesón and others.</p
- …
