Self-Determination, Wellbeing, and Threats of Harm

Author: LAMB, ANTONY

Source: Journal of Applied Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 2, May 2008 , pp. 145-158(14)

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $48.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

David Rodin argues that the right of national-defence as conceived in international law cannot be grounded in the end of defending the lives of individuals. Firstly, having this end is not necessary because there is a right of defence against an invasion that threatens no lives. However, in this context we are to understand that `defending lives' includes defending against certain non-lethal threats. I will argue that threats to national-self determination and self-government are significant non-lethal threats to the wellbeing of individuals that can justify lethal defensive force. Therefore the end of defending individuals can ground a right of national-defence against a `bloodless invasion'. Secondly, Rodin argues that defending lives is not a sufficient condition for military action to be national self-defence, because humanitarian intervention is military action to defend individuals, and such action is in deep tension with national self-defence. I will argue that a reductive account, grounded in claims of need and threats of harm, can justify principles of both intervention and non-intervention on the same grounds; that is, protecting the wellbeing of individuals.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00396.x

Affiliations: 1: University of Bristol, Department of Philosophy, 9 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1TB, UK

Publication date: 2008-05-01