Premium
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND MILITARIZED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: When and Why the Churches Failed to Discern Moral Hazard
Author(s) -
Reed Esther D.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of religious ethics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.306
H-Index - 20
eISSN - 1467-9795
pISSN - 0384-9694
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2012.00524.x
Subject(s) - humanitarian intervention , responsibility to protect , doctrine , human rights , sovereignty , plural , political science , politics , intervention (counseling) , context (archaeology) , law , environmental ethics , moral responsibility , law and economics , sociology , philosophy , psychology , history , linguistics , archaeology , psychiatry
This essay addresses moral hazards associated with the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It reviews the broad acceptance by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches of the doctrine between September 2003 and September 2008, and attempts to identify grounds for more adequate investigation of the moral issues arising. Three themes are pursued: how a changing political context is affecting notions of sovereignty; the authority that can approve or refuse the use of force; and plural foundations for human rights in a religiously and otherwise plural world such that the human rights protection does not become tyrannical.