Revolution and Intervention

Renzo, Massimo

doi:10.1111/nous.12272

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second imperative is to construct and maintain the conditions for meaningful selfdevelopment and agency, or the 'conditions of personal self-determination' as Massimo Renzo 62 terms them. There needs to be a sufficient sense of self and of self-esteem, as well as sufficient trust and confidence in one's fellow agents, together with sufficient predictability to plan, so as to operate in a way that is interactive and purposeful rather than merely defensive.…”

Section: Stewardship and The Global Commonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Law, innovation and technology: fast forward to 2021

Brownsword

Somsen

2021

Law, Innovation and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article, introducing a new extended form of the journal, offers some reflections on the changing context in which we now research law, innovation, and technology. Three major changes are highlighted: the evolving landscape of Law 3.0, potentially de-centring both rules and humans from the legal enterprise; the new 'normal' of life with pandemics, underlining the vulnerability of humans; and, threading through all of this, the Anthropocene, destabilising a host of baseline distinctions, and a constant warning about the fragility of the global commons and the human condition. In this changing context, the question is whether technology can provide the solutions to our global challenges without involving an irreversible erosion of human agency. With this, we open the floor to our contributors.

show abstract

Section: Stewardship and The Global Commonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Law, innovation and technology: fast forward to 2021

Brownsword

Somsen

2021

Law, Innovation and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even now, comparatively little philosophical work has been carried out on the morality of intervention, in contrast to the significant amount of work on just causes for war more generally. [1][2][3][4][5] Second, this literature almost exclusively addresses the permissibility of direct humanitarian interventionthat is, of states' deploying their own armed forces abroad, without the consent of the target state, in order to protect foreign citizens from harm. [6][7][8][9] In more recent years, political debates about how to respond to humanitarian crises abroad have shifted away from direct intervention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Symposium on The Ethics of Indirect Intervention

Frowe

Matheson

2020

J Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intervention in foreign conflicts is, undoubtedly, one of the most urgent and controversial issues in modern politics. After NATO interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the 1990s, which were widely regarded as reasonably successful, states were comparatively receptive to the idea of using military force abroad for humanitarian ends. There followed a flurry of academic literature on the normative implications of intervention, with two noticeable features. First, the literature is predominantly legal in character, focusing on how international law should respond to widespread human rights abuses. Even now, comparatively little philosophical work has been carried out on the morality of intervention, in contrast to the significant amount of work on just causes for war more generally. [1][2][3][4][5] Second, this literature almost exclusively addresses the permissibility of direct humanitarian interventionthat is, of states' deploying their own armed forces abroad, without the consent of the target state, in order to protect foreign citizens from harm. [6][7][8][9] In more recent years, political debates about how to respond to humanitarian crises abroad have shifted away from direct intervention. In the aftermath of disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, governments are increasingly reluctant to deploy their armed forces to fight in foreign domestic conflicts, and there is little public appetite for largescale interventionist wars. Limited NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 was followed by a lack of direct Western intervention in, for example, Syria and Yemen, despite the undoubted gravity of the harms facing the Syrian and Yemeni populations.Instead, several countries are increasingly advocating and employing indirect forms of intervention, such as funding, arming, or training foreign rebel groups. France, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States have armed and trained rebels in Syria, for example. Of course, there is nothing new about states indirectly intervening in foreign conflicts. But, historically, such intervention has been conducted largely covertly, and primarily or solely as a means of furthering the interveners' own political interests. Now, in contrast, indirect intervention is often carried out overtly and presented as a laudable means of discharging one's duties to aid without incurring either the physical or moral risks of waging war. But indirectly contributing to war is not without moral risks, as a growing body of literature in the ethics of war attests. And, of course, not all indirect contributions to foreign conflicts fall under the description of aiding foreign citizens. On the contrary: governments sell, or facilitate the selling of, weapons and equipment to authoritarian states that use those weapons to harm their citizens. Just as we ought to be concerned about vaunted attempts to influence foreign

show abstract

Revolution and Intervention

Cited by 2 publications

References 41 publications

Law, innovation and technology: fast forward to 2021

Law, innovation and technology: fast forward to 2021

Introduction: Symposium on The Ethics of Indirect Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About