Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National Interests and Altruism in Humanitarian Intervention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Motivations for Humanitarian intervention

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((BRIEFSETHIC))

Abstract

In the following chapter I will discuss in detail how realist and cosmopolitan theories approach the motivation for humanitarian intervention. The first sub-chapter will clarify why and to what extend realism assigns considerable importance to national/self-interests in the decision making process surrounding the question of whether to intervene in a humanitarian crisis or not. The second sub-chapter will make an argument for the prevalence of altruism as the primary motivation for humanitarian intervention from a moralist point of view. This chapter will facilitate the understanding of the qualitative research presented in the subsequent chapter where the motivation for post-1990 humanitarian interventions will be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Richardson (1997). (p. 1).

  2. 2.

    Acharya (2003). (p. 2).

  3. 3.

    Maitland (2002). (p. 4).

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Ibid (p. 5).

  7. 7.

    Roskin (1994). (p. 2).

  8. 8.

    Lat. Transation = man is man’s wolf in Hobbes (1990). (p. 87).

  9. 9.

    Morgenthau (1985). (p. 5).

  10. 10.

    Keifer (2003). (p. 6).

  11. 11.

    Slenska (2007). (p. 4).

  12. 12.

    Shibata (2006). (p. 27).

  13. 13.

    Walzer (1995). Op. Cit. 1 (p. 54).

  14. 14.

    See Spielvogel (2004).

  15. 15.

    William (2005). (p. 318)

  16. 16.

    Dobos (2009). (p. 3).

  17. 17.

    Dobos (2008). Op. Cit. 123 (p. 35).

  18. 18.

    Buchanan (1999). (p. 75).

  19. 19.

    Krauthammer (1985). (p. 11).

  20. 20.

    Dobos (2008). Op. Cit. 123 (p. 39).

  21. 21.

    Buchanan (1999) Op. Cit. 162 (p. 76).

  22. 22.

    Cook (2000). (p. 62).

  23. 23.

    Dobos (2009). Op. Cit. 160 (p. 5).

  24. 24.

    Bellamy (2003). (p. 10).

  25. 25.

    Wheeler (2004).(p. 6).

  26. 26.

    Chinkin (2000). (p. 37).

  27. 27.

    Boettcher (2004). (p. 333).

  28. 28.

    Wesley (2005). (p. 58).

  29. 29.

    Krauthammer (1999). (p. 3).

  30. 30.

    Casualty averse strategies relying solely on air power without any substantial ground support constrained by altitude margins do not only cause considerable collateral damage but also make the achievement of military objectives highly ineffective. Due to changing realties in the combat theatre caused by irregular tactics and strategies employed by insurgent groups, far distance or high altitude munitions have oftentimes difficulties to accurately eliminate targets. The reason is that insurgency warfare relies on highly mobile forces that can operate in disguise among the civilian population, which make it difficult for spotters and air men alike to engage a target from far distance without having the ability to identify the targets validity and exact position. Relying on far distance and high altitude munitions can cause highly disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure without effectively eliminating valid military targets. [See Cooper (2001). (p. 85)].

  31. 31.

    Atack (2002). (p. 289).

  32. 32.

    Farer et al. (2005) Op. Cit 24 (p. 228).

  33. 33.

    Wheeler (2000). (p. 30).

  34. 34.

    Ottaway and Lacina (2003). Op. Cit. 56 (p. 74).

  35. 35.

    Ibid (p. 76).

  36. 36.

    Ibid (p. 83).

  37. 37.

    Ayoob (2002). Op. Cit. 8 (p. 92).

  38. 38.

    Nafie (2000). (p. 1).

  39. 39.

    Sid-Ahmed (2000). (p. 3).

  40. 40.

    Wimelius (2009). (p. 16).

  41. 41.

    Bellamy (2009). (p. 113).

  42. 42.

    Al Jazeera. Net (2010).

  43. 43.

    Soanes and Stevenson (2005).

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Bar Tal (1986). (p. 5).

  46. 46.

    Smith (1969). (p. 47).

  47. 47.

    Piliavin and Charng (1990). (p. 45).

  48. 48.

    Schwartz and Howard (1984). (p. 234).

  49. 49.

    Kerber (1984).

  50. 50.

    Hardin (1982). (p. 167).

  51. 51.

    Fixdal and Smith (1998) Op. Cit. 82 (p. 294).

  52. 52.

    Coates (2003). (p. 75).

  53. 53.

    Welin (2005). Op. Cit. 107 (p. 47).

  54. 54.

    Ibid (p. 48).

  55. 55.

    United States Catholic Conference (1992). (p. 339).

  56. 56.

    John Paul (1993). (p. 587).

  57. 57.

    Miller (2000). (p. 21).

  58. 58.

    Himes (1994). (p. 2240.

  59. 59.

    United States Catholic Conference (1992). Op. Cit. 199 (p. 341).

  60. 60.

    Weiss (1999). (p. 11).

  61. 61.

    See Dicklitsch (1998).

  62. 62.

    Ramsbotham and Woodhouse (1996). Op. Cit. 135(pp. 14–18).

  63. 63.

    Helmke (2004). Op. cit. 7 (p. 13).

  64. 64.

    Jus cogens = 

    […]For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character […]

    * United Nations International Law Commission. (1969). (Art. 53).

  65. 65.

    Note: Despite the relatively solidarist or cosmopolitanist standpoint Walzer brings forward here, it is worth noting that his ideology continuously changed over the last decades. The standpoint taken by Walzer today might vary from the position expressed here.

  66. 66.

    Walzer (1977).(p. 107).

  67. 67.

    Ibid (p. 108).

  68. 68.

    Ogata (1998).

  69. 69.

    MacFarlane and Weiss (2000)(p. 112).

  70. 70.

    Verwey (1992). Op. Cit. 128 (p. 114).

  71. 71.

    Parekh (1997) Op. Cit. 130 (p. 55).

  72. 72.

    Miller (2000) Op. Cit. 201 (p. 17).

  73. 73.

    Wheeler (2004).Op. Cit. 169 (p. 5).

  74. 74.

    Miller (2008).(p. 57).

References

  • Acharya A (2003) The War in Iraq: morality or the national interest? IDSS Commentaries. Singapore, The Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Atack I (2002) Ethical objections to humanitarian intervention. In: Security dialogue vol 33, no 3. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayoob M (2002) Humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty. Int J Hum Rights, 6(1):81–102. Routledge Publisher, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar Tal D (1986). Altruistic motivation to help: definition, utility and operationalization. Humboldt J Soc Relat, 13:3–14. Humboldt State University, Areata, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy AJ(2003) Humanitarian intervention and the three traditions. In: Global Society, vol 17:1. Routledge Publisher London, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy AJ (2009) Responsibility to protect or Trojan horse? The crisis in Darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq. In: Rosenthal JH and Barry C (eds) Ethics and international affairs. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher WA (2004) Military intervention decisions regarding humanitarian crises: framing induced risk behaviour. J Conflict Resolut, 48:331. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (1999) The internal legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. J Polit Philos 7(1):71–87. Wiley and Blackwell Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2000) The state that acts alone: bully, good samaritan or iconoclast? Eur J Int Law, 11(1):31–41. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates A (2003) Humanitarian intervention: a conflict of traditions. In: Nardin, Terry and Vanessa W (eds) Humanitarian intervention. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook ML (2000) Immaculate war: constraints on humanitarian intervention. Ethics Int Aff 14:55–65. Carnegie Council, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper SA (2001)Air power and the coercive use of force. Wash Q, 24(4):81–93. MIT University Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicklitsch S (1998) The elusive promise of NGOs in Africa: lessons from Uganda. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobos N (2008) Justifying humanitarian intervention for the people who pay for it. Praxis 1(1). Spring Manchester UK: Manchester University

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobos N (2009) On altruistic war and national responsibility: justifying humanitarian intervention to soldiers and taxpayers. In: Ethical theory and moral practise. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Farer T et al (2005) Roundtable: humanitarian intervention after 9/11. Int Relat, 19:211 ff. Sage Publications on behalf of the david davies memorial institute for international studies, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fixdal M, Smith D (1998) Humanitarian intervention and just war. Mershon international studies review, 42(2):283–312. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The international studies association

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1982) Discriminating altruisms. Zygon, 17:163–86. Wiley and Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke B (2004) OCEANIC—Conference on international studies. Conference papers: Humanitarian intervention: exemplifying the changing ground rules for the international use of force. Canberra, AU: ANU College of Asia and the Pacific

    Google Scholar 

  • Himes K (1994) Catholic social thought and humanitarian intervention. In: Powers GF et al (eds) Peacemaking: moral and policy challenges for a new world. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes T (1990) Vom menschen. Vom Bürger, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • John Paul II (1993) Address to the diplomatic corps. Origins 22 (Feb 4). Rugby, UK: Biblical Creation Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Keifer BD (2003) When tactics and strategy collide. National war college report. Washington, DC: National War College, 31 Oct 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerber K (1984) The perception of nonemergency helping situation, rewards, and the altruistic personality. J Pers 52:177–187. Wiley and Blackwell Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer C (1985) When to intervene: what’s worth fighting for? The new republic vol 192. Winnipeg, CA: CanWest Global Communications, pp 10–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer C (1999) The short, unhappy life of humanitarian war. Natl Interest, 74:5–8. Washington, DC: National Affairs, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane SN, Weiss T (2000) Political interest and humanitarian action. Secur Stud, 10(1):112–142. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland I (2002) The human face of self-interest. J Bus Ethics 38(1/2). At our best: Moral lives in a moral community pp 3–17. Berlin, Springer Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RB (2000) Humanitarian intervention, altruism, and the limits of casuistry. J Religious Ethics, 28(1):3–35. Blackwell Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RB (2008) Justifications of the Iraq war examined. Ethics Int Affairs, 22.1. Carnegie Council, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau H (1985) Politics within nations, 6th edn. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafie I (2000) An egyptian agenda, Al-Ahram Weekly. Issue No 498 Cairo: Al-Ahram, 7–13 Sep 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Jazeera. Net (2010) Bashir genocide charge under review. Al Jazeera, 3 Feb 2010. Retrieved online 22 Apr 2010 from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/02/20102355920514636.html

  • Ogata S (1998) Keynote address. Report from the second Wolfsberg humanitarian forum, 5–7 June 1998 Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway M, Lacina B (2003). International interventions and imperialism: lessons from the 1990s. SAIS Review, vol XXIII, No 2 (Summer–Fall). John Hopkins University Press, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Parekh B (1997) Rethinking humanitarian intervention. Int Political Sci Rev, 18(1):55–74. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin JA, Charng HW (1990) Altruism: a review of recent theory and research. Annu Rev Sociology, 16:27–65. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsbotham O, Woodhouse T (1996) Humanitarian intervention in contemporary conflict. Cambridge, UK Polity

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson JA (1997) Defining the post cold war national interest. Natl Forum J 1(1) Lake Charles LA: Natl Forum J

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskin MG (1994) National interest: from abstraction to strategy. Parameters, Winter 4–18. Carlisle, PA: The US Army War College

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH, Howard J (1984) Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In: Staub E et al (eds) Development and maintenance of pro-social behaviour: international perspectives on positive morality. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibata MY (2006) A case study on the US policy in humanitarian intervention: Somalia, Rwanda, and Liberia. A research report (AU/ACSC/616-7978/AY06). Maxwell, AL: USAF Air University

    Google Scholar 

  • Sid-Ahmed M (2000) The UN impasse, Al-Ahram Weekly. Issue No 479 Cairo: Al-Ahram

    Google Scholar 

  • Slenska SD (2007) Strategy national interests and means to an end. SSI Free Publication, Carlisle, PA: The US Army War College

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1969) The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics

    Google Scholar 

  • Soanes C, Stevenson A (2005) Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielvogel JJ (2004) Western civilization: a brief history: comprehensive volume. Wadsworth Publishing, Stamford, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations International Law Commission (1969) The Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Available: Index to United Nations Documents and Publications. UN Doc. A/Conf.39/27; 1155 UNTS 331; 8 ILM 679 (1969); 63 AJIL 875 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Catholic Conference (1992) American responsibilities in a changing world. Origins 22.20 (Oct 29): 338–341. Rugby, UK: Biblical Creation Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Verwey W (1992) The legality of humanitarian intervention after the cold war. In: Ferris E (ed) A challenge to intervene: a new role for the United Nations?. Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala, SE

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M (1977) Just and Unjust Wars, 1st edn. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M (1995) The politics of rescue. Soc Res, 62(1):51ff. The new school of social research. New York, p 53

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss TG (1999) Principles, politics and humanitarian action. Ethics Int Affairs, 13:1. Carnegie Council, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Welin AF (2005) Minimal solidarism: post-cold war responses to humanitarian crisis. LINKÖPING UNIVERSITET. MSc in International and European Relations. Master’s Thesis, Aug 2005. LIU-EKI/INT--05/022—SE. Linkoping, SE: Linkoping University

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesley M (2005) Toward a realist ethics of intervention. Ethics Int Aff, 19.2. Carnegie Council, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler N (2000) Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler N (2004) Humanitarian intervention after 9/11. In: Anthony Lang (ed) Humanitarian intervention. Georgetown University Press Georgetown, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • William MC (2005) What is the national interest? The neoconservative challenge in IR theory. Eur J Int Relat 11:307 ff. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimelius AE (2009) Humanitarian interventions as neo-colonialism? Perspectives from the Muslim world. Paper for the annual international studies association convention, March 22–25, San Diego, CA. The North–South divide and international studies. Tucson, AZ: International Studies Association

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. War & Defence Studies, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Andreas Krieg

Authors
  1. Andreas Krieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Krieg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krieg, A. (2013). National Interests and Altruism in Humanitarian Intervention. In: Motivations for Humanitarian intervention. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5374-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation