Rob Sivulka

Is Walzer's Position on Iraqi Containment in Need of Humanitarian Intervention?

by Robert Sivulka

Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, Vol. 83, 2006 (139-56)

I evaluate the limitation on war in situations that seem to call for humanitarian intervention.  I begin with... more I evaluate the limitation on war in situations that seem to call for humanitarian intervention.  I begin with Walzer’s position on jus ad bellum (the justice of going to war).  This involves a discussion of his views on the sovereignty of states and the commitment to non-intervention.  I will also summarize Walzer’s view on when humanitarian interventions are justified.  I will examine his position on the Iraq war as an example of his general jus ad bellum views.  I will then critique Walzer’s position on humanitarian intervention.  I argue that a case may still be made for the permissibility of humanitarian intervention using Walzer’s own principles.  This will turn on empirical claims concerning the gravity of the Iraqi situation and the real life inadequacy of his proposal.  I also argue that he minimizes the objectivity of justice, and puts state rights above individual human rights.  Finally, I examine utilitarian concerns, which seem to motivate much of his limited war theory.

It is not my intent to argue for or against jus ad bellum regarding the intervention of Iraq beginning in March 2003.  Weighing all the empirical issues to provide material content for the formal principles of just war theory is simply beyond the scope of this paper.  Rather, my primary purpose is to demonstrate that Walzer’s position for Iraqi containment and against this humanitarian intervention is inadequately grounded.  I argue that humanitarian intervention is justified in a greater number of cases than Walzer’s criteria allow.