1467-9795/asset/JORE_left.gif?v=1&s=8ff8e8f037be202a541320d69cf42eacebefbd94)
1467-9795/asset/JORE_right.gif?v=1&s=ea7a75d8ae854d93d0e87669b83c60ef93e669ab)
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND MILITARIZED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: When and Why the Churches Failed to Discern Moral Hazard
Article first published online: 22 APR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2012.00524.x
© 2012 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.
Additional Information
How to Cite
Reed, E. D. (2012), RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND MILITARIZED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: When and Why the Churches Failed to Discern Moral Hazard. Journal of Religious Ethics, 40: 308–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2012.00524.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 22 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 22 APR 2012
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- Responsibility to Protect (R2P);
- humanitarian aid;
- use of force;
- sovereignty;
- intervention
ABSTRACT
This essay addresses moral hazards associated with the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It reviews the broad acceptance by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches of the doctrine between September 2003 and September 2008, and attempts to identify grounds for more adequate investigation of the moral issues arising. Three themes are pursued: how a changing political context is affecting notions of sovereignty; the authority that can approve or refuse the use of force; and plural foundations for human rights in a religiously and otherwise plural world such that the human rights protection does not become tyrannical.