Switch to: References

Citations of:

Whose Responsibility to Protect? The Duties of Humanitarian Intervention

James Pattison

Journal of Military Ethics 7 (4):262-283 (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Response to Pattison: Whose Responsibility to Protect?H. M. Roff - 2009 - Journal of Military Ethics 8 (1):79-85.details James Pattison's argument for the assignment of a duty of humanitarian intervention is interesting and offers a new perspective in the humanitarian intervention debate. However, Pattison's argument suffers from three main problems, each increasingly serious: his definition of success is vague and raises questions about the content of a duty of humanitarian intervention; his consequentialist foundation raises problems of prospective and retrospective judgment; and his intentional omission of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties leads to conceptual difficulties. Download Export citation Bookmark
What 'we'?Holly Lawford-Smith - 2015 - Journal of Social Ontology 1 (2):225-250.details The objective of this paper is to explain why certain authors - both popular and academic - are making a mistake when they attribute obligations to uncoordinated groups of persons, and to argue that it is particularly unhelpful to make this mistake given the prevalence of individuals faced with the difficult question of what morality requires of them in a situation in which there's a good they can bring about together with others, but not alone. I'll defend two alternatives to (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 45 citations
Allies in tension: Identifying and bridging the rift between r2p and just war.Henrik Friberg-Fernros - 2011 - Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):160-173.details Abstract It has become almost commonplace to regard the concepts of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Just War as not only compatible but rather closely connected. Contrary to this position I argue here that some Just War criteria are in significant tension with R2P. This tension results from the fact that Just War only makes war permitted while R2P prescribes an obligation. But R2P and Just War not only are in significant tension, but also suffer from inverted weaknesses: R2P is (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation
Moral Justification of Humanitarian Intervention in Modern Just War Theory.Arseniy D. Kumankov - 2021 - Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences 63 (11):58-73.details The article deals with the problem of moral justification of humanitarian intervention by modern just war theorists. At the beginning of the article, we discuss the evolution of the dominant paradigms of the moral justification of war and explain why the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention appears only at the present stage of the development of ethics and the law of war. It is noted that theorization of humanitarian intervention began in the last decades of the 20thcentury. This is (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Humanitarian intervention and historical responsibility.Fredrik D. Hjorthen & Göran Duus-Otterström - 2016 - Journal of Global Ethics 12 (2):187-203.details ABSTRACTSome suggest that the duty of humanitarian intervention should be discharged by states that are historically responsible for the occurrence of violence. A fundamental problem with this suggestion is that historically responsible states might be ill-suited to intervene because they are unlikely to enjoy support from the local population. Cécile Fabre has suggested a way around that problem, arguing that responsible states ought to pay for humanitarian interventions even though they ought not to take part in the military operations. We (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations

1