Abstract: How should the international community respond when states commit atrocity crimes against sections of their own population? In practice, international responses are rarely timely or decisive. To make matters worse, half-hearted or self-interested interventions can prolong crises and contribute to the growing toll of casualties. Recognizing these brutal realities, it is tempting to adopt the fatalist view that the best that can be done is to minimize harm by letting the state win, allowing the status quo power structure to persist. Indeed, this is how many commentators and states have responded to the tide of human misery in Syria. Could a policy of letting the state perpetrator prevail be a viable alternative to other options, including military intervention? This essay suggests not. It explains the logic behind the fatalist approach and shows that problems of recurrence, precedence, and rights mean that such an approach cannot offer a plausible alternative to measures designed to resist and increase the costs of committing atrocity crimes.
Keywords: atrocities, diplomacy, humanitarian, war, victory, Syria, states, protection
The full essay is available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Review
Toward a Cosmopolitan Ethics of Mobility: The Migrant’s-Eye View of the World, by Alex Sager
In this book, Alex Sager challenges the “methodological nationalism” that dominates debates in migration ethics and offers a new way to think normatively about mobility ...
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Essay
Backfire: The Dark Side of Nonviolent Resistance
In this essay, Michael L. Gross examines the ethics of provoking backfire in the context of nonviolent resistance.
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Feature
The Moral Limits of Territorial Claims in Antarctica
This article evaluates the moral weight of the initial territorial claims to Antarctica, which stand as a cornerstone of the Antarctic Treaty.