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) • Essay
The Ethics of Countering Digital Propaganda
Corneliu Bjola argues in this essay that the concept of moral authority offers an original framework for responding to digital disinformation campaigns.
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Essay
The Empire of International Legalism
In this essay, Ian Hurd uses the provocative term “empire” to show how the international legal system is also a political system based on the ...
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Essay
Introduction: Alternatives to War
Some of the most controversial foreign policy issues in the first years of the Trump administration have involved alternatives to war. This roundtable seeks to ...