Explore the vast range of titles available.

The issue of humanitarian intervention has generated one of the most heated debates in international relations over the past decade, for both theorists and practitioners. At its heart is the alleged tension between the principle of state sovereignty, and the evolving norms related to individual human rights. This edited collection examines the challenges to international society posed by humanitarian intervention in a post-September 11th world. It brings scholars of law, philosophy, and international relations together with those who have actively engaged in cases of intervention, in order to examine the legitimacy and consequences of the use of military force for humanitarian purposes. The book demonstrates why humanitarian intervention continues to be a controversial question not only for the United Nations but also for Western states and humanitarian organisations.

A leading authority examines the changing role and structure of the UN, from avoiding inter-state wars to managing humanitarian emergencies. Topics examined include the use of force, the gap between legality and legitimacy, UN-US relations, the North-South divide, the international rule of law, and prospects for UN reform.

'The genocide in Rwanda showed us how terrible the consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder. But the conflict in Kosovo raised equally important questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear legal authority. On the one hand, is it legitimate for a regional organization to use force without a UN mandate? On the other, is it permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences, continue unchecked?' (United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan). This book is a comprehensive, integrated discussion of 'the dilemma' of humanitarian intervention. Written by leading analysts of international politics, ethics, and law, it seeks, among other things, to identify strategies that may, if not resolve, at least reduce the current tension between human rights and state sovereignty. This volume is an invaluable contribution to the debate on all aspects of this vital global issue.

The spread of democracy to a majority of the world's states and the legitimization of the use of force by multilateral institutions such as NATO and the UN have been two key developments since World War II. In the last decade these developments have become intertwined, as multilateral forces moved from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement among warring parties. This book explores the experiences of nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Norway, Russia, UK and US) in the deployment of armed forces under the UN and NATO, asking who has been and should be accountable to the citizens of these nations, and to the citizens of states who are the object of deployments, for the decisions made in such military actions. The authors conclude that national-level mechanisms have been most important in assuring democratic accountability of national and international decision-makers.

Dans son rapport à l'Assemblée du millénaire, le Secrétaire général de l'ONU, M. Kofi Annan, a exhorté la communauté internationale à parvenir une fois pour toutes à un consensus sur les questions fondamentales à régler au niveau des principes et de la pratique, à savoir : de quelle manière, à quel moment et sous l'autorité de quelles instances une intervention doit-elle avoir lieu ? C'est pour relever ce défi que la Commission indépendante internationale de l'intervention et de la souveraineté des états a été créée par le gouvernement canadien en septembre 2000. Le thème central de son rapport est le concept de « la responsabilité de protéger ». Les états souverains ont la responsabilité de protéger leurs propres citoyens contre les catastrophes qu'il est possible d'éviter, qu'il s'agisse de tueries à grande échelle, de viols systématiques ou de famine, mais lorsqu'ils ne sont pas disposés ou aptes à le faire, cette responsabilité doit être assumée par la communauté des états considérée au sens large. Il ne doit plus jamais y avoir de Rwandas.

Why was the UN a bystander during the Rwandan genocide? Do its sins of omission leave it morally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dead? Michael Barnett, who worked at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations from 1993 to 1994, covered Rwanda for much of the genocide. Based on his first-hand experiences, archival work, and interviews with many key participants, he reconstructs the history of the UN's involvement in Rwanda. In the weeks leading up to the genocide, the author documents, the UN was increasingly aware or had good reason to suspect that Rwanda was a site of crimes against humanity. Yet it failed to act. InEyewitness to a Genocide, Barnett argues that its indifference was driven not by incompetence or cynicism but rather by reasoned choices cradled by moral considerations. Employing a novel approach to ethics in practice and in relationship to international organizations, Barnett offers an unsettling possibility: the UN culture recast the ethical commitments of well-intentioned individuals, arresting any duty to aid at the outset of the genocide. Barnett argues that the UN bears some moral responsibility for the genocide. Particularly disturbing is his observation that not only did the UN violate its moral responsibilities, but also that many in New York believed that they were \"doing the right thing\" as they did so. Barnett addresses the ways in which the Rwandan genocide raises a warning about this age of humanitarianism and concludes by asking whether it is possible to build moral institutions.

The international community faces no more critical issue currently than how to protect people caught in new and large-scale humanitarian crises - humanitarian intervention has been controversial both when it has happened, as in Kosovo, and when it has failed to happen, as in Rwanda. While there is general agreement internationally that we should not stand by in the face of massive violations of human rights, respect for the sovereign rights of states maintains a central place among the principles governing relations between states.

This essay considers Michael Tooley’s argument that initiating a causal process is morally equivalent to refraining from interfering in that process. Tooley develops the Moral Symmetry Principle in order to show the moral irrelevance of whether a person causes, or merely allows, some outcome to occur. Tooley argues that the Moral Symmetry Principle is not vulnerable to the objection that it equates actions that are morally distinct. By distinguishing between preventative actions that interfere with another agent’s action from preventative actions that do not, we can resist the inference that I am just as responsible for stopping you from initiating