Carnegie Council

People Topics

Text Size: A A

A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention [Abstract]

Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 23.4 (Winter 2009)

Michael W. Doyle

December 15, 2009

Nonintervention has been a particularly important and occasionally disturbing principle for liberal scholars, such as John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer, who share a commitment to basic and universal human rights. On the one hand, liberals have provided some of the strongest reasons to abide by a strict form of the nonintervention doctrine. It was only with the security of national borders that peoples could work out the capacity to govern themselves as free citizens. On the other hand, those very same principles of universal human dignity when applied in different contexts have provided justifications for overriding or disregarding the principle of nonintervention.

In explaining this dual logic I present an interpretive summary of Mill's famous argument against and for intervention, presented in his "A Few Words on Non-Intervention" (1859), that illustrates what makes Mill's "few words" both so attractive and alarming to us. We should be drawn to Mill's arguments because he is among the first to address the conundrums of modern intervention. The modern conscience tries simultaneously to adhere to three contradictory principles: first, the cosmopolitan, humanitarian commitment to assistance, irrespective of international borders; second, respect for the significance of communitarian, national self-determination; and, third, accommodation to the reality of international anarchy, which puts a premium on self-help national security. I stress, more than has been conventional, the consequentialist character of the ethics of both nonintervention and intervention.

Comparing Mill's "Non-Intervention" and Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977) links two classic statements on just wars of intervention. I conclude that interventionist arguments should go beyond the three paradigmatic cases Walzer explores in Just and Unjust Wars. But while they can draw on Mill's "Non-Intervention," they need to offer a more convincing set of criteria for when such interventions are likely to do more good than harm.

To read or purchase this article, click here.

Related Resources:

Michael Walzer (People)
Special Section: Twenty Years of Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 11 (1997))

About the Journal

The Carnegie Council's flagship publication, Ethics & International Affairs is an interdisciplinary resource for scholars, students, and policy analysts concerned with the moral dimensions of global issues. The journal covers global justice, civil society, democratization, international law, intervention, sanctions, and related topics.

Search the Journal

ETHICS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
25TH ANNIVERSARY

25 year anniversary EIA celebrates 25 years, 1987-2011

SUBSCRIPTIONS
To subscribe to Ethics & International Affairs, or to purchase individual issues and articles, please contact Cambridge University Press.

CALL FOR PAPERS
We are currently accepting submissions for upcoming issues of the journal. For more information, click here.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
For submission guidelines, click here.

RESPONSES
The Editors welcome responses to Features and Essays published in Ethics & International Affairs. To be considered for publication, responses should be no longer than one thousand words, including endnotes (which should be kept to a minimum). Responses are not peer-reviewed, and are published at the Editors' discretion. All responses are subject to editing for length and style. In the event of any questions or substantive editing, the response will be returned to the author for final approval prior to publication. Responses are published online, alongside the article they address.