1 / 25

Lecture 4 The Use of Force April 11° 2007, 1800-20.00

LUISS – Ph. D. in Political Theory Via Oreste Tommasini, 1, Room 111 Problems of International Organization A cycle of five lectures Prof. Daniele Archibugi. Lecture 4 The Use of Force April 11° 2007, 1800-20.00. Internal use of force. From Thomas Hobbes to Max Weber:

jace
Download Presentation

Lecture 4 The Use of Force April 11° 2007, 1800-20.00

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LUISS – Ph. D. in Political TheoryVia Oreste Tommasini, 1, Room 111Problems of International OrganizationA cycle of five lecturesProf. Daniele Archibugi Lecture 4 The Use of Force April 11° 2007, 1800-20.00

  2. Internal use of force From Thomas Hobbes to Max Weber: State authority is based upon the “monopoly” on the use of legitimate force

  3. What is “internal”? • Slow and progressive process of state building • Westphalia model? • Congress of Vienna affirmation? • League of Nations codification? • United Nations statement?

  4. What about external violence?(war) • Long attempt to reduce the agents that could use force • Sub-state subjects include pirates, bandits, insurgents, religious and ethnic minorities • Who could provide the appropriate status? The principle of recognition

  5. Did it imply that external violence was to be banned? Ius gentium approach from Alberico Gentili to Michael Walzer: reduce, not to ban it Just and unjust wars

  6. What are the criteria for a just warin the ius gentium approach? • Just cause (jus ad bellum) • Legitimate authority • Proportionality (just in bello) • Consequential

  7. Alberico Gentili De iure belli in three volumes • First book: ius ad bellum • Second book: ius in bello • Third book: ius post bellum (the spoils) Never, ever, assumption that the winner is also right. Pragmatic approach that was liked by….

  8. Carl Schmitt • Nazi legal theorist • Never accepted the Nuremberg trial • Regarded war as part of human nature

  9. Humanitarian Intervention Who is authorized to perform it? For which reasons? Grotius: atrocities, genocide, human sacrifices, bestiality, mistreatment of parents, sodomy….. all justify intervention….. But states only can undertake them

  10. Atrocities and genocide

  11. Mistreatment of parents

  12. Cannibalism

  13. And… what about the witches burned in Europe?

  14. Gentili vs Grotius

  15. Alberico Gentili, De Iure Belli, I,9 “But if men in another state live in a manner different from that which we follow in our state, they surely do us no wrong”

  16. The dogma of sovereignty • More and more, the legal authorization for interventions in the interest of the others has been reduced • Saint-Pierre and Kant: no interference in internal affairs • This has not prevented wars, but at least it has more and more become clear that each state was fighting its own cause

  17. The recourse to collective intervention to prevent wars • From Grotius to Vattel: intervention allowed when there are already insurgents • The League of Nations and the United Nations as attempts to stop wars • Progressive reinforcement of the notion that no intervention should be made for the benefit of the people (even when a people or an ethnic minority is suffering)

  18. The UN promised much more than it could deliver • The Charter promised to ban wars and to protect human rights • In fact, it managed only partially to deliver these goods • Chapter VI ½ : Peacekeeping • No requirements about the internal regime of member countries

  19. UN PEACEKEEPING

  20. Traditional peace-keeping operations • Consent of belligerents • Armistice • Troops from member states • Light weapon • No participation to war but in self-defence • Neutrality rather than impartiality • Not for humanitarian intervention

  21. Humanitarian Intervention 1945-89 Carried out mainly by states in case of civil wars Success stories: • India in East Pakistan (1971) • Vietnam in Cambodia (1978) • Tanzania in Uganda (1979) No democratic countries involved….

  22. New Peace-Keeping • Conflicts within rather than among states • Not necessarily authorised by conflicting parties • Increase in the quantity and quality of intervention • Typical cases: Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, Somalia, Kossovo?

  23. Too much or too little humanitarian intervention? The currnet dilemma

  24. For a cosmopolitanhumanitarian intervention • In which cases is it necessary to intervene? • Who is authorised to decide when a humanitarian intervention is needed? • How is it necessary to intervene? • Who is going to intervene?

  25. Good willing states?

More Related