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 Essay
Reconstructing Globalization in an Illiberal Era
George F. DeMartino examines recent books from Dani Rodrick and Joseph Stiglitz, both of whom press the case for a reconstructed globalization that generates benefits ...
Fall 2018 (32.3) • Essay
Covert Positive Incentives as an Alternative to War
In this essay, James Pattison argues that covert positive incentives are preferable to both overt incentives and covert force.
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.