Citation

Janzekovic J. Australas. J. Hum. Secur. 2005; 1(1): 19.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, Egan-Reid)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The international community has not demonstrated any coherent logic or moral consistency regarding why direct humanitarian intervention is warranted in some cases and not in others. The moral acceptability of using force to try to resolve international conflicts is problematic. If a civil and caring society professes concern about human rights then it is difficult to argue that some sort of obligation does not exist to do something effective to address clear and repeated gross abuses of human rights. Realists question the basic premise that morality has anything to do with military engagement in the first place and many pacifists object to the use of military force on the assumption that physical force creates more problems than it tries to solve, and that it is morally wrong anyway to use directed force. Just-war theorists and utilitarians support a view somewhere in the middle. That is, sometimes it is morally appropriate to use force, particularly in response to threat, but at other times it is not appropriate where the anticipated solution or outcome would cause more harm than good. The ethical dilemmas of whether or not to use force to counter severe humanitarian abuses are, to a significant extent, contingent on the levels of outrage felt by the international community. This sense of international outrage is usually very selectively applied to specific humanitarian circumstances. It is also generally short lived and it relies more on an observer's immediate feelings of revulsion or shock regarding a particular act. This is not an objective appraisal of the seriousness of the situation.

Language: en