We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
If the war in Afghanistan, even more than that in Iraq, was meant to win the hearts and minds of the locals so they would not sponsor the terrorists we were seeking to defeat, how were Western forces supposed to accomplish the task – or indeed, know when they had accomplished the task? The answer, at least initially, was what was called the Human Terrain project, which might as well have been called the anthropologists full employment scheme, as it sought to use anthropologists to guide Western forces in assessing local support. Coupled with the American administration’s naturalistic belief that once terror states were torn down democracy would spring up unaided, the project was a colossal failure. By tracing the assumptions that went into this particular encounter, we can, perhaps, more readily avoid such actions in the future.
This chapter examines the dramatic transformation of international priorities governing the purpose and principal uses of military force over the past 25 years. It distinguishes the broader historical background of armed humanitarian intervention (AHI) prior to 1989 from two subsequent, distinctive phases: a second wave of humanitarian crises and responses during the 1990s, and a more recent third wave of ethical analysis, dominated by proposals for new political arrangements that would govern collective decision-making by the international community when faced with the question of whether to deploy their military forces for the prevention or cessation of humanitarian crises. The manner in which the history of AHI is narrated is strongly dependent upon the perspectives from which AHI efforts themselves were experienced. All of the military interventions proposed or carried out for humanitarian purposes in the 1990s, however noble their intent violated every single provision of that Weinberger-Powell doctrine.
This chapter argues for what the author calls the justification-based account of humanitarian intervention, according to which the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is determined by two central criteria. The first is that there exists a sound justification for intervention, roughly, that there is a threatened or ongoing process of widespread and serious rights violations that can be averted only by military force and such force is proportionate. This criterion can be satisfied ad bellum. The second criterion is that the actions of interveners are reasonably expected to aid. This criterion applies largely to the in bello behavior of the intervening state. One of the difficulties in making sense of the debate about how to identify humanitarian interventions lies in distinguishing the various components of behavior, motives, intentions, actions, ends, and outcomes.
Philip, Alexander and later Hannibal can be regarded as military commanders of genius, capable of guaranteeing the command and control of a heterogeneous military force. As the territory of the Macedonian state grew, Philip was able to expand its demographic and financial base. The expansion of the Macedonian and Roman manpower bases, which in turn enabled military and territorial expansion, was due to a willingness to extend citizenship and to incorporate allied contingents fully into their military structures. Although Macedonia had some of the best sources of shipbuilding timber in the eastern Mediterranean, neither Philip II nor Alexander embarked upon major programmes of warship construction. The standard warships of the Hellenistic period needed crews of c. 150-300, or more in the case of the larger polyremes. During the Second Punic War the Carthaginian naval effort was not as extensive as that of Rome, but it was still far from negligible.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.