Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - Bombing the beneficiaries

  • Edited by Don E. Scheid, Winona State University, Minnesota
  • Book:
    The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
    Published online:
    05 June 2014
    Print publication:
    24 April 2014, pp 113-130

  • Summary

    In its 1999 intervention in Kosovo, NATO was criticized heavily for its reliance solely on bombing from high altitude. In this chapter, the author defends with what he calls the Restrictive View for the conduct of armed humanitarian intervention. The Restrictive View has been challenged recently by several leading just-war theorists. An alternative view, which the author calls the Permissive View, seems to have become increasingly popular. On the Permissive View, those conducting armed humanitarian intervention are morally required to take on only some or a small amount of the costs of intervention, if any. The chapter presents the prima facie case for the Restrictive View. It argues that beneficiaries are not required to take on greater costs, in comparison with either rescuers or bystanders. More specifically, the author rejects the Rescuers thesis and the Bystanders thesis in turn.