Darfur, the Authority of Law, and Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention

23 Pages Posted: 19 Mar 2008  

Samuel V. Jones

The John Marshall Law School

Abstract

Despite the massive atrocities observed, first in Rwanda and now in Darfur, a wide number of observers oppose the idea of unilateral humanitarian intervention. Contemporary posture typifies the idea that legal recognition of unilateral humanitarian intervention would destabilize world order because some member states would instigate ill-motivated hostilities under the guise of humanitarianism, thereby reducing the efficacy and primacy of the UN Charter. This article offers a new challenge to the pretext claim. By clarifying various ideas about the meaning and limits of law and examining how law emerges as a practical authority, this article illustrates basic distinctions about the relationship between law and morality. It ascribes validity to the integrative, condition based approach to unilateral humanitarian intervention and renders doubtful the pretextualist claim that the noninterventionist framework of the United Nations Charter (Charter) functions as an effective juridical construct. In so doing, this article accepts the possibility of altruistic unilateral humanitarian intervention.

Keywords: Darfur, Genocide, Morality, Jurisprudence, United Nations, Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention

Suggested Citation

Jones, Samuel V., Darfur, the Authority of Law, and Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 39, p. 97, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1106288

Samuel V. Jones (Contact Author)

The John Marshall Law School ( email )

315 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, IL 60604
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
738
Rank
26,488
Abstract Views
3,832