The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

The limits of the principle of charity : Why Haesebrouck is wrong after all

På svenska

Author

Summary, in English

In our article entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect – An incoherent Doctrine?’ we claimed that R2P in the version proposed by the ICISS is incoherent. We argued that the ICISS-report used the criteria of right intention, proportionality and legitimate authority to determine when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory and we continued by arguing that this cannot be done in a coherent manner. In his reply to our article Tim Haesebrouck refutes our argument by claiming that the ICISS differentiates between criteria governing when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory from criteria governing what is permitted in an obligatory intervention and thereby avoid being incoherent. In this closing reply we show through an analysis of the report that ICISS does indeed differentiate between the criteria, but not in order to determine what is obligatory or permitted. Hence, our conclusion regarding the incoherence is not refuted by Haesebrouck.

Publishing year

2016

Language

English

Pages

277-283

Publication/Series

International Politics

Volume

53

Issue

2

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Palgrave Macmillan

Topic

  • Political Science

Keywords

  • coherence
  • ICISS
  • permission
  • duty
  • R2P

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1384-5748