Advanced

The limits of the principle of charity : Why Haesebrouck is wrong after all

Henrik, Friberg Fernros and Brommesson, Douglas LU (2016) In International Politics 53(2). p.277-283
Abstract
In our article entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect – An incoherent Doctrine?’ we claimed that R2P in the version proposed by the ICISS is incoherent. We argued that the ICISS-report used the criteria of right intention, proportionality and legitimate authority to determine when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory and we continued by arguing that this cannot be done in a coherent manner. In his reply to our article Tim Haesebrouck refutes our argument by claiming that the ICISS differentiates between criteria governing when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory from criteria governing what is permitted in an obligatory intervention and thereby avoid being incoherent. In this closing reply we show through an analysis of the... (More)
In our article entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect – An incoherent Doctrine?’ we claimed that R2P in the version proposed by the ICISS is incoherent. We argued that the ICISS-report used the criteria of right intention, proportionality and legitimate authority to determine when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory and we continued by arguing that this cannot be done in a coherent manner. In his reply to our article Tim Haesebrouck refutes our argument by claiming that the ICISS differentiates between criteria governing when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory from criteria governing what is permitted in an obligatory intervention and thereby avoid being incoherent. In this closing reply we show through an analysis of the report that ICISS does indeed differentiate between the criteria, but not in order to determine what is obligatory or permitted. Hence, our conclusion regarding the incoherence is not refuted by Haesebrouck. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
coherence, ICISS, permission, duty, R2P
in
International Politics
volume
53
issue
2
pages
277 - 283
publisher
Palgrave Macmillan
external identifiers
  • scopus:84959337261
  • wos:000371083700007
ISSN
1384-5748
DOI
10.1057/ip.2015.45
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
bab23cad-cdfb-44f9-93a4-3db4dfb959ab
date added to LUP
2016-05-13 16:04:50
date last changed
2017-01-01 08:25:51
@article{bab23cad-cdfb-44f9-93a4-3db4dfb959ab,
  abstract     = {In our article entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect – An incoherent Doctrine?’ we claimed that R2P in the version proposed by the ICISS is incoherent. We argued that the ICISS-report used the criteria of right intention, proportionality and legitimate authority to determine when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory and we continued by arguing that this cannot be done in a coherent manner. In his reply to our article Tim Haesebrouck refutes our argument by claiming that the ICISS differentiates between criteria governing when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory from criteria governing what is permitted in an obligatory intervention and thereby avoid being incoherent. In this closing reply we show through an analysis of the report that ICISS does indeed differentiate between the criteria, but not in order to determine what is obligatory or permitted. Hence, our conclusion regarding the incoherence is not refuted by Haesebrouck.},
  author       = {Henrik, Friberg Fernros and Brommesson, Douglas},
  issn         = {1384-5748},
  keyword      = {coherence,ICISS,permission,duty,R2P},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {277--283},
  publisher    = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  series       = {International Politics},
  title        = {The limits of the principle of charity : Why Haesebrouck is wrong after all},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.45},
  volume       = {53},
  year         = {2016},
}