Waging Humanitarian War

How severe must human suffering be before military intervention is considered? Can there be commensurate legal grounding for such an argument? Which actors are the most appropriate agents of intervention? In this reasonable and straightforward approach to the perplexing issue of humanitarian intervention, Eric A. Heinze incorporates insights from various strands of ethical, legal, and international relations theory. He identifies the conditions under which humanitarian intervention is morally permissible, establishes the extent to which such an ethical argument can be grounded in international law, and determines which actors are best equipped to undertake this task under prevailing political conditions. Heinze presents the reader with a number of empirical examples, including the 1999 Kosovo intervention, the 2003 Iraq war, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan. The result is a more theoretically consistent—and therefore more practically workable—approach to humanitarian intervention.

CONTENTS.

This fully revised fourth edition of Constraints on the Waging of War considers the development of the principal rules of international humanitarian law from their origins to the present day. Of particular focus are the rules governing weapons and the legal instruments through which respect for the law can be enforced. Combining theory and actual practice, this book appeals to specialists as well as to students turning to the subject for the first time.

Debates about humanitarian intervention endure because they pose some of the most important political, legal, and moral questions of our time: about the meaning of sovereignty, the nature of international law, the just use of force, and the nature of international order. Humanitarian intervention in practice remains highly contentious because of the irreconcilable tension between the hope of achieving liberal internationalist aims using the ultimate realist means, military force. The book begins by looking at the most contemporary conundrum in the debate about humanitarian war: the concept of the "responsibility to protect" civilians in other countries from grave human rights abuses, even by resort to force, and traces the debate at three levels. First, it shows how decision makers grappled with three main aspects of decisions to use force: authorization, justification, and obligation. Second, the unique contexts of four NATO nations-- Britain, France, Germany, and the United States-- are examined in light of how they influenced national decisions about war. Third, the analysis traces three distinct currents of thought, or worldviews, regarding intervention.

A revealing examination looks at the decision-making in four NATO capitals about waging war in Kosovo and Iraq. Written by a combat veteran who also served on the faculty of the Naval War College, Waging War to Make Peace: U.S. Intervention in Global Conflicts is a thought-provoking analysis of the decision to make war in the modern world. The subject is examined through the lens of the decision-making of four NATO nations—Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—in the 1999 Kosovo campaign compared to their decisions in 2003 regarding the Iraq war. What emerges is a picture of how the bitter dispute over Iraq was the result of disagreements about who has the authority to wage war, when it is justified, and whether nations have an obligation to intervene in the case of human rights and humanitarian emergencies. The book shows how those who enthusiastically hailed a new era of warfare based upon human rights and humanitarian values misjudged the significance of the Kosovo decision, and it underscores issues with which leaders must come to grips if NATO allies are to avoid broader disputes in the years ahead.

The environmental devastation caused by military conflict has been witnessed in the wake of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the Kosovo conflict. This book brings together leading international lawyers, military officers, scientists and economists to examine the legal, political, economic and scientific implications of wartime damage to the natural environment and public health. The book considers issues raised by the application of humanitarian norms and legal rules designed to protect the environment, and the destructive nature of war. Contributors offer an analysis and critique of the existing law of war framework, lessons from peacetime environmental law, means of scientific assessment and economic valuation of ecological and public health damage, and proposals for future legal and institutional developments. This book provides a contemporary forum for interdisciplinary analysis of armed conflict and the environment, and explores ways to prevent and redress wartime environmental damage.

Keen investigates why conflicts are so prevalent and so intractable, even when one side has much greater military resources. He asks who benefits from wars-- whether economically, politically, or psychologically-- and argues that in order to bring them successfully to an end we need to understand the complex vested interests on all sides.