首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Global Ethics >Humanitarian disintervention
【24h】

Humanitarian disintervention

机译:人道主义干预

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

When discussing whether or not our elected governments should intervene to end genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity in other countries, the humanitarian intervention debate has largely been assuming that liberal democracies bear no responsibility for the injustice at hand: someone else is committing shameful acts; we are merely considering whether or not we have a positive duty to do something about it. Here I argue that there are important instances in which this dominant third party perspective (TPP) is empirically false and normatively misguided. Much before our positive ‘responsibility to protect’ potential victims from mass atrocities, we violate our negative duty not to harm these victims. Employing work by Thomas Pogge and Leif Wenar, I argue that this harm currently comes about as our elected governments either buy, or allow our corporations to buy, the world's most precious resources from brutal dictators and warlords, who dominate some of the states that are at the heart of intervention discussions. In these cases, democracies' most immediate duty is not intervention but rather humanitarian disintervention: boycotting severely oppressive regimes, and in particular stopping to recognizing these regimes - whether dictators or civil warriors - as possessing legitimate authority to sell their peoples' resources. I begin with a brief survey of the intervention literature, followed by the foundations for the disintervention alternative. I then elaborate the conceptual and practical advantages of disintervention, concluding with thoughts on the reasons for TPP's lasting dominance.View full textDownload full textKeywordsdisintervention, third party perspective, humanitarian intervention, use of force, resource curse, Thomas PoggeRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2010.548820
机译:在讨论我们的民选政府是否应干预以结束其他国家的种族灭绝,战争罪行,种族清洗和危害人类罪时,人道主义干预辩论主要是在假设自由民主国家对眼前的不公正不承担任何责任:其他人进行可耻的行为;我们只是在考虑我们是否有积极的责任去做一些事情。在这里,我认为在某些重要情况下,这种占主导地位的第三方观点(TPP)在经验上是错误的,并且在规范上受到误导。在我们对潜在的受害者采取积极的“保护责任”免遭大规模暴行之前,我们违反了不伤害这些受害者的消极义务。利用托马斯·波格(Thomas Pogge)和莱夫·文纳(Leif Wenar)的著作,我认为这种损害目前是随着我们当选政府从残酷的独裁者和军阀手中购买或允许我们的公司购买世界上最宝贵的资源而发生的,而这些残酷的独裁者和军阀在某些州占主导是干预讨论的核心。在这些情况下,民主国家的最直接的职责不是干预,而是人道主义的干预:抵制严重压迫的政权,尤其是停止承认这些政权(无论是独裁者还是内斗士)拥有出售人民资源的合法权力。首先,我对干预文献进行了简要的调查,然后介绍了非介入治疗的基础。然后,我详细阐述了不干预的概念和实践优势,并考虑了TPP持久统治的原因。查看全文下载全文关键词不干预,第三方观点,人道主义干预,使用武力,资源诅咒,托马斯·波格(Thomas Pogge)相关var addthis_config = { “泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,services_compact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2010.548820

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of Global Ethics》 |2011年第1期|p.33-46|共14页
  • 作者

    Shmuel Nilia*;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 01:01:35

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号