Logical extensions of the responsibility to protect

Hayes, Kelli A. (2009-12)

Thesis (MPhil (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009.

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Are violent and non-violent mass atrocities morally different? According to the United Nations, they are. But why? The answer to this question is important as it in part determines our obligations to people living in other countries. This thesis seeks to determine if violent and non-violent mass atrocities are morally different and, if not, whether the latter should be included under the United Nations’ doctrine of the responsibility to protect. In order to do this, the thesis first examines the conditions under which sovereignty exists in order to understand when intervention can occur. It also analyzes just war theory to discern when military intervention to halt nonviolent mass atrocities is justified. Having established these two concepts, the thesis then presents three arguments for why non-violent mass atrocities are morally indistinguishable from violent ones and should also be included under the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. A discussion of the feasibility of implementing this extension and the long-term effects of these types of interventions follows. Finally, the thesis contains three case studies in order to apply the arguments presented earlier.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is daar ‘n morele verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade? Volgens die Verenigde Nasies is daar so ‘n verskil, maar hoekom? Die antwoord tot hierdie vraag is deels belangrik omdat dit ons verantwoordelikhede tot mense in ander lande bepaal. In hierdie tesis word daar gepoog om te bepaal of daar so ‘n verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade is, en, indien nie, of nie-gewelddadige gruweldade ook moet tel onder die Verenige Nasies se verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm. Die tesis poog eerstens om die kondisies vir soewereiniteit te bepaal ten einde te probeer verstaan wanneer ‘n intervensie moreel regverdigbaar is. Dit analiseer ook die teorie van geregverdigde oorlogvoering ten einde te bepaal wanneer militêre inmenging om nie-gewelddadige gruweldade stop te sit geregverdig is. Na hierdie twee konsepte ondersoek is word daar drie argumente verskaf om aan te toon dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade nie moreel onderskeibaar is van gewelddadige gruweldade nie, en dus dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade onder die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm behoort te tel. Dit word gevolg deur ‘n bespreking van die praktiese haalbaarheid van die implementering van so ‘n uitbreiding van die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm, asook ‘n bespreking van die langtermyn effekte van hierdie tipes intervensies. Die tesis eindig met drie gevallestudies ten einde die argumente wat reeds gemaak is toe te pas.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/2197
This item appears in the following collections: