Ethics & International Affairs Volume 23.4 (Winter 2009): Symposium: Walzer and the Moral Standing of States: A Few Words on Mill Walzer and Nonintervention [Abstract]

Dec 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.

You may also like

JAN 7, 2021 Journal

Ethics & International Affairs Volume 34.4 (Winter 2020)

The highlight of this issue is a roundtable organized by Kai He, T. V. PaulĀ and Anders Wivel on international institutions and peaceful change. The ...

Eleanor Roosevelt holding a poster of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Lake Success, NY, November, 1949. <br>CREDIT: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#/media/File:Eleanor_Roosevelt_UDHR.jpg">Wikimedia</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en">(CC)</a>

DEC 2, 2020 Podcast

The United Nations at 75: Looking Back to Look Forward, Episode 4, with Bertrand Ramcharan

In the fourth and final installment of "The United Nations at 75: Looking Back to Looking Forward," host Margaret P. Karns speaks with Bertrand Ramcharan, former ...

Image via <a href="https://www.vpnsrus.com">www.vpnsrus.com</a>

OCT 7, 2019 Podcast

Making AI Work, Ethically & Responsibly, with Heather M. Roff

Heather M. Roff, senior research analyst at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, thinks some researchers are having the wrong conversations about AI. Instead of ...