Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:52:54.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preventing Military Humanitarian Intervention? John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas on a Just Global Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Regina Kreide

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We rarely witness wars between states anymore but this does not mean that there are fewer conflicts or less injustice worldwide. The contrary is true. More people than ever have become a victim of civil wars, other sub-state armed conflicts and genocide during recent years. The international community disagrees about how to react to gross human rights violations that occur in the course of these “new wars”: whereas some think this is a genuine task for the United Nations, others stress the argument of unrestrained national sovereignty as essential condition for international peace. Despite unceasing contestation, foreign interventions are nevertheless increasingly seen as an appropriate response to this kind of armed domestic conflicts – at least under certain conditions. The latest testimony in this direction is the emergence of an intense international debate over the “responsibility to protect”, which seeks to justify military invention in cases of a severe violation of individual negative rights of freedom.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 1: Special issue: The Kantian Project of International Law , 01 January 2009 , pp. 93 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Mary Kaldor: NEW AND OLD WARS. ORGANIZED VIOLENCE IN A GLOBAL ERA (1999).Google Scholar

2 ICISS 2001: THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT. REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, Ottawa: 11. An argument for an extended notion of the “responsibility to protect” was made by Moon with regard to the refusal of the authoritarian regime in Burma to let humanitarian aid into the country after the cyclone catastrophe.Google Scholar

3 Doyle, Michael W.: The new interventionism, in: Pogge, Thomas W., GLOBAL JUSTICE (2001), 228.Google Scholar

4 See, among others, Georg Meggle, ETHICS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS (2001); J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS: ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL DILEMMAS (2003).Google Scholar

5 Doyle (note 2).Google Scholar

6 Mary Kaldor, NEW AND OLD WARS (2000) 257.Google Scholar

7 Deen K.Chatterjee and Don E.Scheid, Introduction, in, Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Chatterjee/Scheid, 2003), 1–21.Google Scholar

8 John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, (1999).Google Scholar

9 See John Rawls, Political Liberalism (1993). The original position – briefly said - provides that citizens’ representatives preside over principles of fairness that determine the “basic structure” of society, and that they do this with an impartiality deriving from the fact that they possesses only limited knowledge about prospective social position.Google Scholar

10 RAWLS (note 8), 65.Google Scholar

11 RAWLS (note 8), 37.Google Scholar

12 RAWLS (note 8), 65.Google Scholar

13 Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträgezur DISKURSTHEORIE DES RECHTS UND DES DEMOKRATSICHEN RECHTSSTAATS (1992), engl. transl. by William Rehg, Between Facts and Norms (1996).Google Scholar

14 Jürgen Habermas, Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens -aus dem historischen Abstand von 200 Jahren, in: DIE EINBEZIEHUNG DES ANDEREN, (1996).Google Scholar

15 Jürgen Habermas, Eine politische Verfassung für die pluralistische Weltgesellschaft? in, ZWISCHEN NATURALISMUS UND RELIGION, (2005), 331.Google Scholar

16 Habermas (note 15), 328.Google Scholar

17 Habermas (note 15), 328.Google Scholar

18 Habermas, THE KANTIAN PROJECT AND THE DIVIDED WEST, 139. HABERMAS (note 15), 328.Google Scholar

19 This was Habermas’ suggestion in Habermas (note 13), supra note 12 at 218.Google Scholar

20 See also the very good introduction of Ciaran Cronin Habermas (note 18), Editor's Preface, vii-xxi at ix.Google Scholar

21 See especially The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy, in THE POSTNATIONAL CONSTELLATION. POLITICAL ESSAYS, (2001) 110–111.Google Scholar

22 Habermas (note 18), 136.Google Scholar

23 Habermas (note 15), 338.Google Scholar

24 Patrizia Nanz and Jens Steffek, Global Governance, Participation, and the Public Sphere, in GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION, (2004), 314–335.Google Scholar

25 Brunkhorst, Hauke, Globalizing without a state, 31 MILLENNIUM, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 3, 675, (2004).Google Scholar

26 RAWLS (note 8), 35.Google Scholar

27 RAWLS (note 8), 106.Google Scholar

28 As far as I know, it was Guillermo O'Donnell who first introduced the notion of “defective democracy”. He, however, uses this adjective when addressing societies with fair and free political competition but with weak or intermittent horizontal accountability. See O'Donnell 1993, On the State, Democratization and Some Conceptual Problems. A Latin American View with Glance at Some Post-Communist Countries, 21 WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 1355 (1993).Google Scholar

29 RAWLS (note 8), 92, note 2.Google Scholar

30 RAWLS (note 8), 106, note 2.Google Scholar

31 RAWLS (note 8), 90, note 1, and 93, note 6.Google Scholar

32 For a better understanding of how Rawls deals with the “outlaw” states', it is helpful to recall the characteristics of liberal and decent hierarchical peoples. To put it briefly, liberal peoples are internally united through a constitutional government, a shared cultural elements like language, historical consciousness and political culture. To the outside they act “reasonably,” which means that they “offer fair terms of cooperation” to other peoples (See Rawls (note 7), 25) - presuming that they are committed to those principles themselves. “Decent hierarchical” societies differ from liberal peoples in that governmental institutions may be influenced by “comprehensive doctrines,” such as religious faiths and political equality only exists in a formal sense: it does not apply to individuals, but rather to groups or castes that should be represented in the political and legal systems [See Rawls (note 7), 64). To the outside decent hierarchical societies are non-aggressive, which is a major difference from the ‘outlaw regimes’ (which I will describe in a moment).Google Scholar

33 See the helpful taxonomy in Rawls’ theory. Please see for this Henry Shue, Rawls and the Outlaws, 1(3) POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY&ECONOMICS, 307, 308 (2002). RAWLS (note 7): Peoples: 23–7. A. liberal (23-5); B. Decent (4,59-60, 63–7); Societies (neither Peoples nor States): A. Burdened (5,63,90,106);B. Benevolent Absolutism (63,92); States, usually ‘outlaw states': A. Expansionist as well as internally repressive (90); B. Non-expanionist but internally repressive (90 note 1, 93–4 note 6)Google Scholar

34 RAWLS (note 7), 90, footnote 2.Google Scholar

35 For this diagnosis also Shue (note 31).Google Scholar

36 RAWLS (note 8), 93, note 2.Google Scholar

37 RAWLS (note 8), 90, note 2.Google Scholar

38 RAWLS (note 8), 93, note 6.Google Scholar

39 Darrell Moellendorf, COSMOPOLITAN JUSTICE, 15 (2004).Google Scholar

40 For this argument Habermas (note 13), 219; and with reference to Günther, Klaus, Habermas (note 13), 235. See also Giovanna Borradori, Dialogue with Jürgen Habermas, in PHILOSOPHY IN A TIME OF TERROR, 39 (2003).Google Scholar

41 Habermas (note 18), 35.Google Scholar

42 Habermas (note 18), 86.Google Scholar

43 Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, CHALLENGES AND CHANGE (TCC), 2004, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, United Nations, http://www.un.org/secureworld/ Google Scholar

44 The High-level Panel, however, mentions also a tight link between poverty and civil wars, Id., 15.Google Scholar

45 RAWLS (note 7), 37.Google Scholar

46 RAWLS (note 7), 106.Google Scholar

47 Habermas (note 17), 140–143.Google Scholar

48 Habermas, Jürgen, Kommunikative Rationalität und grenziiberschreitende Politik: eine Replik, in, ANARCHIE DER KOMMUNIKATIVEN FREIHEIT. JÜRGEN HABERMAS UND DIE THEORIE DER INTERNATIONALEN POLITIK, 406, (2007, Peter Niesen/Benjamin Herborth Hg.).Google Scholar

49 Habermas (note 18), 143.Google Scholar

50 For the differentiation between national, transnational and supranational in Habermas's theory see page 7 of this article.Google Scholar

51 Habermas (note 15), 335.Google Scholar

52 Thomas Pogge, WORLD POVERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, (2002).Google Scholar

53 See on this thesis Onora O'Neill, Transnational economic justice, in, O'Neill, BOUNDS OF JUSTICE, 115 (2000); see Pogge, Thomas, WORLD POVERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, (2002).Google Scholar

This “institutional approach” appears also in the High-level-Report on TCC, when the authors remind “leaders” having “agreed that poverty alleviation is undermined by continuing inequality in the global trading system.” […] In 2001, the WTO Doha Declaration explicitly committed signatories to put the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of negotiations over a new trade round. WTO member should strive to conclude the Doha development round at the latest in 2006”. See, supra note 39, 28.Google Scholar

54 HABERMAS (NOTE 18), 143.Google Scholar

55 Shue, Henry, Basic Rights, (1980).Google Scholar

56 Waldron, Jeremy, Liberal Rights, 212 (1993).Google Scholar

57 Lafont, Cristina, Alternative Visions of a New Global Order. What should Cosmopolitans Hope for?, In SOZIALE WELT, (2008). See also my comment on this paper: Why a minimalist notion of justice is not enough: Comment on Cristina Lafont's paper “Alternative Visions of a New Global Order: What should Cosmopolitans hope for?”, in SOZIALE WELT (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Lafont (note 57), 22.Google Scholar

59 Lafont (note 57), 21.Google Scholar

60 Rainer Forst, DAS RECHT AUF RECHTFERTIGUNG, (2007).Google Scholar

61 Jürgen Habermas, BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS, (1996).Google Scholar

62 Brunkhorst, Hauke, Zwischen transnationaler Klassenherrschaft und egalitärer Konstitutionalisierung. Europas zweite Chance – Im Kampf urns Europäïsche Parlament?, in: Niesen, Peter/Herborth, Benjamin (Hg.), ANARCHIE DER KOMMUNIKATIVEN FREIHEIT. JÜRGEN HABERMAS UND DIE THEORIE DER INTERNATIONALEN POLITIK, 321 (2007).Google Scholar