2 interventions on behalf secessionist movements he

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • CountStraw2232
  • 6

This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 6 pages.

and waiting greatly magnifies the risk, Walzer says a first strike is permissible. 2. Interventions on behalf secessionist movements – He allows for such interventions although only once it is clear that the secessionist movement controls a substantial portion of the population and territory. 3. Counter-interventions – He allows for such interventions if undertaken in order to balance the prior interventions of other powers. 4. Humanitarian Intervention – He allows for such interventions if a state is enslaving or massacring its citizens. Unlike the traditional legalist paradigm that holds as sacrosanct the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of a nation-state, Walzer allows intervention in order to stop domestic injustice, where that injustice is truly horrific and shocking to the moral conscience. 5. Something less than capture and punishment – Unlike the traditional legalist paradigm Walzer does not require that the goal of war must be to capture and punish the aggressor. Here again he maintains that states are not really individuals and the reasons for capturing and punishing individuals who commit crimes do not apply equally to aggressor states. Sometimes there are good reasons for ending a war prior to completely vanquishing, capturing and punishing the enemy. In all, Walzer offers five revisions to the traditional Legalist Paradigm, the majority of them having to do with interventions not permitted by the traditional Legalist Paradigm. But as Walzer himself says, he does not intend these revisions to be permissive, nor should they be understood as a rejection of the Legalist Paradigm . Rather, they are based upon the Legalist Paradigm itself. In other words, Walzer believes that the Legalist Paradigm is predicated upon the idea that the state exists to protect individuals and their basic rights to life and liberty. Thus where a state is violating individual rights, it forfeits its own right to non-interference, i.e., it forfeits its territorial integrity and political sovereignty. In the end, then, these revisions, according to Walzer, are consistent with the Legalist Paradigm. The revisions like the Legalist Paradigm are meant to uphold the values of individual life and communal liberty. 5
Image of page 5
2. When, if ever, is war morally obligatory – Is war ever obligatory? For example, it may be morally permissible, at least on Walzer’s account, to intervene in Rwanda to prevent the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people. But are we morally obligated to do so? Some say that it depends on whether we have the means to do so, and whether we can do so without excessive difficulty . But let’s assume that we have the means and can do so without excessive difficulty. Do we then have to intervene in order to stop this type of brutal massacre? Some suggest that although it is permissible for us to do so, we are not obligated to do so and should not do so unless our vital national interests are at stake (See the Weinberger doctrine, for example). Of course others suggest that if we can stop
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture