The Burden of Autonomy: Non-combatant Immunity and Humanitarian Intervention
Ethical Perspectives 12.3 (September 2005): 341-355
Michael Walzer argues that except in cases involving genocide or mass slaughter, humanitarian intervention is... more Michael Walzer argues that except in cases involving genocide or mass slaughter, humanitarian intervention is unjustified because "citizens get the government they deserve, or, at least, the government for which they are 'fit.'" Yet, if people are autonomous and deserve the government that rules over them, then it would seem that they are responsible for the government's actions, including their nations' wars of aggression. That line of thought undermines the doctrine of non-combatant immunity, which is perhaps the most important of Walzer's jus in bello principles. In this way, the concept of self-determination frustrates Walzer's attempts to keep jus ad bellum and jus in bello considerations separate.