"I don't think intervening in other countries is analogous to helping an individual here."

Why not? What moral code or philosophical argument says that the number of meters away the victim is calls for different action?

In my moral code, I immediately call whatever phone number I have available to get the forces required to respond to the crime.

Because it involves countries.

This also raises issues of why countries like the US or the EU get to intervene. Does that mean China and Russia do as well? — Marchesk

This is an excellent point. In terms of global authority, and even moral authority, the US doesn't have it all its own way, certainly not these days. Among the most powerful countries, each has different interests and priorities, and intervenes in different places supporting different sides. Who has the moral high ground?

One reason I'm more inclined to agree with you, @Pfhorrest, @Daniel, @Coben and others here, against Paul Edwards, is precisely the situation that the question, "who has the moral high ground?" reflects, namely, one in which great powers are competing internationally for influence and authority, and internally for domestic approval. Simply put, I cannot trust the USA to do the right thing, or to attempt to do the right thing carefully. Their meddling overseas has been reckless and destructive, and often makes the world a more dangerous place, even if it is well-meaning. As it happens, I think it is sometimes well-meaning on the part of many of its proponents, and yet also founded on an ignorance about other parts of the world; but just as much, or even more, is it about building up their international stature, spreading their influence, undermining their competing great powers via proxy conflicts, bolstering their public approval back home, and so on. This means that welfare, peace, and justice for ordinary people are not as such the highest priorities. (Much of this can apply to China and Russia too)

By the way, that's part of my answer to my own question above:

A strong man ought to help a frail old lady who is being beaten by someone younger and stronger than she is, even if she is not asking for help. The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening? — jamalrob

I was critical of the motives of the people involved is making those decisions

Even in the absolute worst case, that Bush only went to war because Iraq had the best sunflower seeds and he thought he could steal them, why didn't YOU have a goal to liberate the Iraqi people, which would have happily coincided with Bush's plan for (allegedly) different/immoral reasons?

Regarding Saddam's crimes being ignored earlier, the US was focused on fighting the Cold War, not do humanitarian interventions. If you have any complaint about that, take it up with Mr Marx.

Let's take the paradigmatic cases of WW2. Most people think the Nazis (and their allies) were worth fighting, and if any war was just, it was that one. But there was a terrible price in doing so. An estimated 40-50 million civilians died, and this culminated in two nukes being dropped on cities. This after fire and carpet bombing cities, all done by the good guys.

Maybe it had to be done, but it's not so easy if you start out knowing that will be the cost. At the very least, the potential cost should be seriously taken into consideration before committing to such action.

Because it involves countries.

What moral/philosophical code introduces the concept of a "country" where a previous strategy becomes invalidated?

One where it goes beyond preventing an individual in the street from being raped, because you might have to bomb a neighborhood, among other things.

Who has the moral high ground? — jamalrob

YOU should have the high moral ground. YOU should have derived a philosophy even superior to that of the US. What did YOUR moral philosophy say should be done about Iraqi women being raped by their own government?

One where it goes beyond preventing an individual in the street from being raped, because you might have to bomb a neighborhood, among other things.

Ok, thankyou. So it depends on how much force is required to respond to the rape call. What if some terrorists have taken people in a building hostage, and you need SWAT to intervene, and there's a high likelihood of innocents being killed by the SWAT action? Would you say SWAT can't be used? Or would you just say that that's the appropriate level of force needed to respond to that particular criminal act, and the deaths are on the criminal terrorists, not SWAT?

What moral/philosophical code introduces the concept of a "country" where a previous strategy becomes invalidated? — Paul Edwards

The countries, and thereby their governments, and thereby the people these governments represent, insofar as they were democratic at the time, have signed the UN Charta, which enshrines non-intervention. That's at least a contractual obligation with some moral weight.

But the rule is also reasonable because outside of the UN, states operate in an anarchic environment with only few overarching principles. Interventionism would amount to a state, or states, imposing their will on other states without any process of redress and without any possible oversight. It'd be akin to mob justice, done without the consent of all parties.

The countries, and thereby their governments, and thereby the people these governments represent, insofar as they were democratic at the time, have signed the UN Charta, which enshrines non-intervention. That's at least a contractual obligation with some moral weight.

I didn't sign any such thing, so my moral code is not dependent on the UN Charter. Is yours?

But the rule is also reasonable because outside of the UN, states operate in an anarchic environment with only few overarching principles. Interventionism would amount to a state, or states, imposing their will on other states without any process of redress and without any possible oversight. It'd be akin to mob justice, done without the consent of all parties.

Not all parties consented to being raped by Saddam's goons either, or having their tongues cut out. It's already mob justice in my eyes. But not yours?

Simply put, I cannot trust the USA to do the right thing, or to attempt to do the right thing carefully. — jamalrob

Case in point is ISIS, which was generated by long distance fumbling and apathy on the part of the US.

The US didnt want to govern the middle east the way the British did. There was no popular will to do that. It's not in keeping with the image the US has of itself. And it's immoral to bomb a working ecosystem if you're not going to invest in helping a new one grow to stability.

But I do think Putin wants Russia to at least appear to be a superpower. Someone needs to say no to further expansion by Russia. Maybe the EU could do it. Or China.

I didn't sign any such thing, so my moral code is not dependent on the UN Charter. Is yours? — Paul Edwards

Contractual obligations have moral weight according to my moral code.

Not all parties consented to being raped by Saddam's goons either, or having their tongues cut out. It's already mob justice in my eyes. But not yours? — Paul Edwards

Two wrongs do not make a right. There is a difference between you personally fighting an injustice and you employing the machinery of a state against another state to help their subjects. The latter will obviously have significant negative consequences on an international scale that you cannot just ignore in your calculus. An goal is only morally good if it can also be accomplished by morally good means.

Contractual obligations have moral weight according to my moral code.

Contracts come with escape clauses. Shouldn't you be seeking to extricate yourself from this contract, now that you realize it allows Saddam to chop out people's tongues with impunity?

Two wrongs do not make a right

I don't consider protecting Iraqi women from rape to be a "wrong".

There is a difference between you personally fighting an injustice and you employing the machinery of a state against another state to help their subjects.

I don't see a difference in my moral code. I outsource violence to different institutions depending on the circumstances at hand.

An goal is only morally good if it can also be accomplished by morally good means.

There is nothing immoral about calling up International SWAT to go and spread human rights. There is something immoral about trying to stand in the way of SWAT.

There is nothing immoral about calling up International SWAT to go and spread human rights. There is something immoral about trying to stand in the way of SWAT. — Paul Edwards

Of course there is. Because yours is not the only SWAT team around, and all of them also shoot innocent bystanders.

Of course there is. Because yours is not the only SWAT team around,

Any SWAT team that wants to convert a dictatorship into a democracy is OK. Like Senegal liberating Gambia.

and all of them also shoot innocent bystanders.

So long as they don't deliberately target them, it's not immoral.

If it was you having your tongue cut out by Saddam's goons, would you want International SWAT to rescue you? Doesn't your moral code require you to look at the world from the perspective of others?

So long as they don't deliberately target them, it's not immoral. — Paul Edwards

Yeah, I disagree. You're limiting responsibility for your action only to your intended results. But it's a fact that you don't control the exact result, so your idea of responsibility rests on a fiction.

If it was you having your tongue cut out by Saddam's goons, would you want International SWAT to rescue you? Doesn't your moral code require you to look at the world from the perspective of others? — Paul Edwards

From a purely rational perspective, I'd only want to be rescued if the rescue can be achieved without endangering even more innocent people. I would not want to make it a rule, for example, that you're allowed to torture the spouses and children of kidnappers in order to determine their hideout.

Yeah, I disagree. You're limiting responsibility for your action only to your intended results. But it's a fact that you don't control the exact result, so your idea of responsibility rests on a fiction.

Then you cannot call the police when you see a rape occurring outside your house. The police might hit a pedestrian when responding to the call.

I'd only want to be rescued if the rescue can be achieved without endangering even more innocent people.

Again, this precludes calling the police on a rape occurring in your street. More innocent people are endangered.

Note that if I was having my tongue cut out, and I had a button to destroy Earth, I would do so to end the injustice. Certainly International SWAT can do a much better job than destroying Earth, ie they will accidentally kill a lot fewer people.

Then you cannot call the police when you see a rape occurring outside your house. The police might hit a pedestrian when responding to the call. — Paul Edwards

That doesn't follow from what I said. You have to consider likely outcomes. Some risks are justified. But you can't go around simply ignoring all undesirable outcomes.

Note that if I was having my tongue cut out, and I had a button to destroy Earth, I would do so to end the injustice. Certainly International SWAT can do a much better job than destroying Earth, ie they will accidentally kill a lot fewer people. — Paul Edwards

That just means your moral compass is way out of whack.

You have to consider likely outcomes. Some risks are justified.

The likely outcome was that Iraq would be converted from an enemy dictatorship to an allied democracy, which is what happened.

That just means your moral compass is way out if whack.

You talk as if you can handle having your tongue cut out, but I really do wonder how long you could really withstand torture before pressing the magic button to either end Earth or at least call in International SWAT.

What if it was instead your daughter who was about to be raped by Uday? Would you at least call International SWAT for her sake?

Terrible news.

Thanks for asking.

I'll start by saying that I'm only aware of one clean humanitarian intervention ever, since the idea has come into play and that was the intervention by the French, approved by the UN Security Council (UNSC), in April 2011. But this one was even legal, because approved by the UNSC.

Legally speaking there's only a right to defend one's self from the threat or use of force or to protect another from that. A threat has to be imminent and clear, not something that might happen or still far off. For any other reasons, including humanitarian intervention, approval from the UNSC is required. That's the legal answer.

We all know the UNSC is a political body and that its permanent members will block resolutions if they concern political allies. The UNSC can therefore fail to intervene where intervention would be appropriate. This has given rise to a body of work with respect to humanitarian intervention in literature and humanitarian intervention in practice. The latter is crap, the former has a lot to say for it depending on what you read (I don't recommend Hippyhead or Paul Edward's posts obviously).

A humanitarian intervention is broadly the use or threat of force against a State in order to protect non-State groups or people from some type of substantial breach of their human rights. There's a movement to get this codified as part of the UN Charter (The Responsibility to Protect) - and therefore shouldn't be confused as a roadmap for individual states to intervene without UNSC approval - others base themselves on customary international law, or consider it illegal. If they consider it illegal then there are those who say sovereignty trumps human rights and those that believe it can be illegal to intervene but that this may be excused because it protects a higher cause.

I'm personally inspried by the just war doctrine to qualify sovereignty. I'm reaching back to some old work again to explain my thoughts on the subject of "right authority", which equally applies to sovereignty:

It is the care of the common weal that is entrusted to those in authority and it is therefore their business to watch over the common weal of a community. And as it is lawful for them to use the sword, as Aquinas put it, in defending this common weal against internal disturbances so too is it their business to wage war in defending the common weal against external enemies.

Quoting Augustine he says: “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should lie in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” It is important to stress the requirement of supreme authority. It would seem that any authority that can turn to a higher authority for arbitration is not allowed to declare war. However, the possibility that seeking redress might fail because the highest authority is ineffectual in enforcing its decisions begs the question whether a lower authority is then allowed to declare war. It appears to me that the ability to enforce decisions is inherent to Aquinas’ idea of authority, since he does not consider this problem. What, then, is an acceptable way of defining authority?

It is suggested for the purposes of my analysis that an authority is a body, which is entrusted with the care of the common weal and has been given the power to use force in accordance with the consensus of the relevant community that transferred its ability to use force to the authority.

“In accordance with” denotes the fact that nobody subjugates himself body and soul to a sovereign or State, for there exist statutes that confer definite powers to an authority to administer and provide an order of coexistence in which everyone can do as he wishes as long as he remains within the system that is created for everyone’s secure and safe interaction and interdependence. It is undeniable that the object when instituting such authority is to subject the exercise of power to a rule of law.

The relevance of a community relates to the extent it has the ability to use force against other communities and impose its will on those other communities and its ability to transfer the use of force. A supreme authority is therefore never part of any community. In a democracy the relevant community is the electorate, who are a part of a larger nation. In a medieval kingdom it were the king’s vassals, but the kingdom consisted of peasants and workmen as well. Although the described process seems democratic it is of course possible that the relevant community is a powerful minority within a greater whole. This is sociological legitimisation of authority and as such it is unconcerned with the objective good of the authority.

Illegitimate authority is then authority that has lost its legitimacy because of the development of one or more new relevant communities that vie for enforcement of their will with the established relevant community. This will mean that at that time there is no relevant community that can transfer power for no one community has at that time the ability to impose its will on others or prevent others from wilful exercise of force within their community. Once the fog of such civil war lifts sufficiently to enable some understanding of the new balance of power, it is entirely possible that several new authorities are created dependent on the progress and/or the outcome of a war. The authority can also be illegitimate because of a lack of consensus within the relevant community in the sense that not enough subjects of the relevant community recognise the authority. In either case, there is a fundamental absence of legitimacy for the authority does not represent the relevant community or a community’s majority. The authority might well continue to exist and exercise power, but it has lost its legitimacy.

I would suggest another term for an authority to which no powers or only partial powers have been transferred. I consider this to be imperfect authority. For example, such authority can have religious, scientific or traditional authority but it has no instruments or too little instruments to enforce its rules. Imperfect authority can also be the result of the development of new problems to which the authority has not been adequately equipped to deal with. It is then the business of the relevant community to create new instruments for the authority to handle such problems, as it is their business to decide to which rules of law the authority’s powers are subject.

Considering that it is easier to control that which is close at hand, there must be a convincing reason why the parts that make up the relevant community are willing to transfer their ability to use force. When we consider the use of force necessary to be able to impose one’s will on others, two processes become apparent. If one person imposes his will on others, these others will have lost their freedom insofar as this person chooses to exercise force to impose his will. These others are then faced with two options, either acquiesce to these circumstances, which do not necessarily have to be bad circumstances, or oppose them in a combined effort, assuming that each separately does not have enough strength.

Instead of having one’s freedom dependent on the way the person in “power” exercises force, a level of freedom is guaranteed by transferring (a part of) the ability to use force to a common authority able to protect the community against the wilful exercise of force by an outside third. On the other hand, acquiescence will create an authority, which is not necessarily illegitimate.

The other process is similar to that of conflict settlement. In conflict settlements disputes are sometimes brought before an objective third party. This third party, however, can also be created from the ranks of the disputing parties. In this process, it is the authority itself that enables the relevant community to reach consensus and diminish strife. Both (or more) parties protect themselves against each other’s wilful exercise of force, which is now transferred to the authority and bound by the rules these same parties instituted when forming this authority. The purpose, for which authority is instituted, is therefore the protection of the community against the wilful exercise of force.

The protection against wilful exercise of force must then inter alia be the authority’s primary duty. If the authority fails in its primary duty, it fails in its care of the common weal. The relevant community that instituted it automatically assumes this duty as there is no other community – not considering the development of one or more new relevant communities – that has the ability to provide this protection or any community necessarily willing to do so. Also, it can be argued that the relevant community that instituted the authority is primarily responsible for the authority’s functioning for it is this community that subjected the authority’s exercise of power to rules of law. If the authority lacks the powers to fulfil its primary duty and this is caused by its imperfection then the relevant community is responsible. Either way, if the authority fails in its primary duty then it loses its singular right to exercise force. As long as the authority has the powers to fulfil its primary duty and effectively does so it retains this right in principle. This is what I will say of authority, its legitimacy and its ability and right to exercise force. — Moi

Can a sovereign nation lose its sovereignty? I think it can and I believe there is where the gap lies in which humanitarian interventions should be allowed. But it takes quite a bit before it does so. And that's because, if we're talking about oppression this is a vague concept. Are the Chinese oppressed? How about Hong Kong citizens? Or for the communist minded among us, how about the poor in most capitalist societies?Torture might happen (Guantanemo) but it may not be systematic or at a large enough scale. How about not being able to appeal court cases? Strictly speaking a breach of due process and therefore a gross breach of human rights but does it warrant intervention? So which human rights abuses and how bad should it be before we should even start considering to act? This is not something with an easy answer from a moral point of view. From a political one it is too easy, leading to abuse. Whatever the answer, it's clear that we should judge on a case by case basis.

Problematic too is to find an alternative authority within the relevant community to take the place of the illegitimate authority in a manner that not only makes it legitimate but also effective. It won't do to simply occupy and impose a new system on people. So even if we are talking about an illegitimate authority any intervention must ensure it reaches the goal of establishing a new authority as well. If it's absent, your have no business intervening unless we're talking about genocide.

Aside from such considerations of course the intervening party should have the right intention and the situation his use of force introduces should be an improvement over what it tries to stop and the war itself should be less bad than the situation itself. An intervening party should also use force only as a last resort, especially because we are here not speaking of imminent threats or actual use of force at scales we understand to be conventional war. And finally, the action needs to be proportional.

That's more or less my take on it.

But does "legal" really mean anything if there is no method of enforcement?

:up:

Great stuff. I'll chew on it.

Do customs and traditions?

So yes, I think it does. It is not for nothing that every time some country breaches international law they do so couched in reasons why what they're doing is actually legal. So Russia liberated ethnic Russians in Crimea and protected their right to self-determination thereby reinforcing the idea that humanitarian intervention to protect self-determination should either a) be excused despite being illegal, b) is part of customary international law or c) should be codified in the UN Charter.

No country is going to say "because I can" because you don't want to create the precedent among a group of peers where the power relations shift over time that you can always do whatever you want because might makes right. At some point whether it's 10 years away or a 100, you're going to be on the receiving end if you don't watch out. As a consequence, even when a country breaches international law they tend to reinforce it at the same time.

Putin would claim legitimacy because he just makes such things up as he goes. He knows he is the law as long as there's no one to stop him.

The world stage is just a bunch of gorillas. There's no law, not really.

Right. By that token there are no customs and traditions. Not really, really.

Every modern ruler, including Hitler, just makes it up as they go along because... shits and giggles. Germany attacked the Netherlands because England and France were going to attack the German Ruhr Area. Hitler has a legal defence for every invasion. Explain to me why the gorillas are bothering?

By that token there are no customs and traditions. Not really, really. — Benkei

Customs, such as shaking hands, are regulated by informal social sanctions, aren't they? If I don't present a firm handshake, I won't get the job, or the contractor will think I'm weak. It's about getting what you want.

On the global scale, international law is established by agreements between nations. If those agreements disintegrate, the law does too. So if the US breaks the law, at that moment the law, for all practical purposes, is gone because the US is no longer in agreement. Right?

I think the sentiment in the wings is that we need some way to call down divine condemnation on those who irritate the hell out of us. From a nihilist point of view, that's a waste of time.

Germany attacked the Netherlands because England and France were going to attack the German Ruhr Area. Hitler has a legal defence for every invasion. Explain to me why the gorillas are bothering? — Benkei

Propaganda probably.

Propaganda probably. — frank

That doesn't make sense. That's for the home team and definitely something dictators don't need to worry about. Try again.

That doesn't make sense. That's for the home team and definitely something dictators don't need to worry about. Try again. — Benkei

So your point is that Hitler was intent on following international law, and to that end, he made sure everything he did was legal?