Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention
| Author | Garrett Wallace Brown,Alexandra Bohm |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066115607370 |
European Journal of
International Relations
2016, Vol. 22(4) 897 –919
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066115607370
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
Introducing Jus ante Bellum as
a cosmopolitan approach to
humanitarian intervention
Garrett Wallace Brown
University of Sheffield, UK
Alexandra Bohm
University of Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian
responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from
violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice
based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue
that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan
grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite
the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan
arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further
ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many
contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying
a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust
justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this
article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times,
be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus
ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about
humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust
principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more
thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.
Keywords
Cosmopolitanism, humanitarian intervention, human security, normative theory,
Responsibility to Protect, theory and practice
Corresponding author:
Garrett Wallace Brown, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Northumberland Road, Elmfield
Lodge, Sheffield, S10 2TU, UK.
Email: g.w.brown@sheffield.ac.uk
607370EJT0010.1177/1354066115607370European Journal of International RelationsBrown and Bohm
research-article2015
Article
898 European Journal of International Relations 22(4)
Introduction
To make our argument for why principles of Jus ante Bellum are crucial to debates about
humanitarian military intervention, the article is divided into four sections. The first sec-
tion will undertake a brief survey of two moral arguments generally employed by cosmo-
politans when justifying the use of humanitarian military intervention. This section will
also highlight three persistently problematic questions that have remained largely unre-
solved within the cosmopolitan literature. From this, the second section explores three
current themes within cosmopolitan debates about humanitarian intervention and how
these themes intersect and potentially support our argument for the incorporation of prin-
ciples of Jus ante Bellum. The third section seeks to illustrate that the lack of discussion
about incorporating principles of Jus ante Bellum in debates about humanitarian military
intervention is not simply confined to the realm of academia; Jus ante Bellum principles
also relate directly to current preventative shortcomings within the Responsibility to
Protect (RtP) and other international laws concerning the use of force. By exploring the
language and practice of the RtP, it is possible to illustrate why it remains insufficient and
morally malnourished on cosmopolitan grounds. Lastly, the fourth section will draw out
three key implications of our argument for cosmopolitan thought more generally and
how these relate to the practice of humanitarian military intervention. By exploring these
implications, it will be argued that incorporating Jus ante Bellum principles into the cos-
mopolitan debate about the use of force will add greater consistency, legitimacy and
focus to cosmopolitan humanitarian interventions and how our understanding of ‘inter-
vention’ can better correspond to broader cosmopolitan ambitions.
Nevertheless, before moving forward, it is important to set and justify the parameters
of this article. Primarily, although many non-cosmopolitans within Liberalism (Doyle,
2015; Pattison, 2010; Teson, 2003) and the English School (Booth, 2007; Dunne, 2013;
Hurrell, 2003; Linklater, 2011; Wheeler, 2005), as well as advocates of the RtP (Bellamy,
2014; Evens, 2008), argue for humanitarian military intervention without also providing
explicit links to Jus ante Bellum principles, a focus on cosmopolitanism has been main-
tained for the following reasons. First, as argued later, cosmopolitans often rely on strong
deontological claims as a foundation for military intervention, which results in unique
tensions that require more sophisticated justification for the use of violence than has been
previously provided (Atack, 2005; Fabre, 2012; Reader, 2007). Second, cosmopolitans
are the staunchest promoters of global justice within International Relations, yet they still
insufficiently link their arguments for intervention to issues of distributive justice, or
they have done so in a way that focuses on criminal justice (Archibugi, 2008; Brock,
2009; Fine, 2007; Held, 2010; Pattison, 2008) and cosmopolitan law enforcement
(Hayden, 2005; Kaldor, 2003; Smith, 2007). Third, as cosmopolitans ourselves, we have
remained uncomfortable, unsure and unconvinced by these existing cosmopolitan
accounts supporting humanitarian military intervention and its possible cosmopolitan
expression via the RtP (Held, 2010; Ossewaarde and Heyse, 2015; Sangha, 2012). As a
response, this article represents an alternative and more comprehensive cosmopolitan
vision, which we suggest can better legitimate cosmopolitan interventions as well as
justify the ultimate aim of these interventions in the face of growing criticism. Lastly,
although we recognize that the concept of Jus ante Bellum has clear heuristic links to just
To continue reading
Request your trial