结果主义-义务论理论化,武装人道主义干预和2012-2013中非共和国危机

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
N. Erameh, V. Ojakorotu
{"title":"结果主义-义务论理论化,武装人道主义干预和2012-2013中非共和国危机","authors":"N. Erameh, V. Ojakorotu","doi":"10.1163/1875984x-20220013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nDespite the challenges that have greeted Responsibility to Protect (R2P) interventions in Africa, the need to authorise R2P remains compelling. Drawing from secondary sources, this study interrogates the R2P intervention in the Central African Republic (car) from within the frame of the ‘consequentialism’ and ‘deontology’ debate, contending issues, and the extent to which such interventions enhance or inhibit further institutionalisation of the doctrine. Though the existing peacekeeping mission – which was further amplified by the mobilisation of R2P via UN Security Council Resolution 2127 – reflects the deontological position of halting attacks against the civilian population, the emerging issues and relapse into deadly conflicts in the post-intervention era amplifies consequentialism’s main criticisms. The study concludes that the R2P experience in car highlights the value of both theoretical positions. However, it is imperative for the consequentialist position to strengthen its arguments for civilian protection by considering the moral argument of the deontologist. This is key to improving armed intervention through the phases of planning, implementation, and post-intervention for the purposes of achieving sustainable peace.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consequentialism – Deontology Theorising, Armed Humanitarian Intervention, and the 2012-2013 Central African Republic Crisis\",\"authors\":\"N. Erameh, V. Ojakorotu\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1875984x-20220013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nDespite the challenges that have greeted Responsibility to Protect (R2P) interventions in Africa, the need to authorise R2P remains compelling. Drawing from secondary sources, this study interrogates the R2P intervention in the Central African Republic (car) from within the frame of the ‘consequentialism’ and ‘deontology’ debate, contending issues, and the extent to which such interventions enhance or inhibit further institutionalisation of the doctrine. Though the existing peacekeeping mission – which was further amplified by the mobilisation of R2P via UN Security Council Resolution 2127 – reflects the deontological position of halting attacks against the civilian population, the emerging issues and relapse into deadly conflicts in the post-intervention era amplifies consequentialism’s main criticisms. The study concludes that the R2P experience in car highlights the value of both theoretical positions. However, it is imperative for the consequentialist position to strengthen its arguments for civilian protection by considering the moral argument of the deontologist. This is key to improving armed intervention through the phases of planning, implementation, and post-intervention for the purposes of achieving sustainable peace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-20220013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Responsibility to Protect","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-20220013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管“保护责任”(R2P)干预措施在非洲面临挑战,但授权R2P的必要性仍然十分迫切。从二手资料中,本研究从“结果主义”和“义务论”辩论的框架内对中非共和国(car)的R2P干预进行了质疑,争论的问题,以及这种干预在多大程度上加强或抑制了该学说的进一步制度化。尽管现有的维和任务——通过联合国安理会第2127号决议动员R2P而进一步扩大——反映了停止对平民袭击的道义立场,但在干预后时代新出现的问题和重新陷入致命冲突放大了结果主义的主要批评。该研究的结论是,汽车领域的R2P经验凸显了两种理论立场的价值。然而,结果主义立场有必要通过考虑义务论者的道德论点来加强其保护平民的论点。这是通过规划、执行和干预后各阶段改进武装干预以实现可持续和平的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consequentialism – Deontology Theorising, Armed Humanitarian Intervention, and the 2012-2013 Central African Republic Crisis
Despite the challenges that have greeted Responsibility to Protect (R2P) interventions in Africa, the need to authorise R2P remains compelling. Drawing from secondary sources, this study interrogates the R2P intervention in the Central African Republic (car) from within the frame of the ‘consequentialism’ and ‘deontology’ debate, contending issues, and the extent to which such interventions enhance or inhibit further institutionalisation of the doctrine. Though the existing peacekeeping mission – which was further amplified by the mobilisation of R2P via UN Security Council Resolution 2127 – reflects the deontological position of halting attacks against the civilian population, the emerging issues and relapse into deadly conflicts in the post-intervention era amplifies consequentialism’s main criticisms. The study concludes that the R2P experience in car highlights the value of both theoretical positions. However, it is imperative for the consequentialist position to strengthen its arguments for civilian protection by considering the moral argument of the deontologist. This is key to improving armed intervention through the phases of planning, implementation, and post-intervention for the purposes of achieving sustainable peace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Responsibility to Protect
Global Responsibility to Protect Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
44.40%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信