Values File

2 many situations exist where weighing the ends is

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: SERVES NO FUNCTION EXCEPT PROTECTING STATES THAT COMMIT GENOCIDE WHEN HUMAN RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED, IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED Elizabeth E. Ruddick, Director of Strategic Research of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1997. Boston University Law Review, p. 440-441. The simplest theoretical means for dispensing with State consent to international humanitarian action is to abolish the principle of State sovereignty altogether. Michael Reisman, for example, has argued that human rights norms have given new meaning to all of the terms of international law, including those that preexisted them. They are thus "constitutive" of the contemporary international legal order. n66 The contemporary notion of popular sovereignty, Reisman argues, has superseded the traditional norm of State sovereignty, which "scrutiny of international human rights without permission of the sovereign" would have violated. n67 Stated simply, a State that rules without popular consent is no longer sovereign, and outside intervention to return power to the true sovereign - the people - is lawful. n68 Other scholars have argued that international law has had to respond to the appearance of new actors on the international stage who do not fit within the conceptual borders of the nation-state, including ethnic groups, refugees and IDPs, and regional and international organizations. n69 Most succinctly, Louis Henkin has called for the rejection of the idea of State sovereignty as a "myth." SLHS Value File Teleology Sweeping moral denunciations presume guilt before trial; they seek to oversimplify the debate without considering consequences of our actions, stifling ethical calculations Robert Wright,, October 4, 2002, downloaded 10-6-02, id=2071670&&entry=2071928#arguments Goldberg succeeds in establishing that Saddam Hussein is the nastiest leader on the world stage today. Then again, there's always someone who holds that title, but America hasn't ever made that a sufficient cause for war--not even when the person is "by far" the nastiest on the stage. One reason is that American foreign policy has generally been in the h...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online