Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between Sovereign Judgment and the International Rule of Law: The Protection of People from Mass Atrocities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Politics of International Political Theory

Abstract

Chris Brown argues that force, coercion and violence are features of all political orders. The reason is that justifying, scandalizing and perpetuating the use of force go hand in hand. The chapter addresses the underlying mechanisms with regard to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’—R2P. Chris Brown argues that R2P is based on an anti-political theory and therefore is basically flawed. The chapter presents the counterargument that (instrumental) de-politicization is an essential part of any political process. De-politicization may help to provide the normative space for sovereign judgment within an international rule of law. Under this perspective, the chapter comes to a more positive assessment of R2P as a political concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this respect, Kant fits into the tradition of liberalism identified by Waltz, which makes ‘no easy assumption about the rationality and goodness of man’ (Waltz 1962: 331). But Kant certainly was not simply a realist in disguise as Waltz suggests (Walker 2008: 452).

  2. 2.

    In this regard, the problems of intra-state and inter-state order are more similar than Realists would be willing to admit. This is what Brown emphasizes when he talks about the presence of violence in all political orders (Brown 2009: 96).

  3. 3.

    Cf. the debate on ‘just policing’ today (Schlabach 2007; Enns 2013).

  4. 4.

    On this misinterpretation of Hans Kelsen’s ‘Grundnorm’, see Fischer-Lescano (2005): 338–339.

  5. 5.

    Anne Marie Slaughter: ‘Good Reasons for Going Around the UN’, New York Times, March 18, 2003.

  6. 6.

    See the contributions in Knight and Frazer (2012).

  7. 7.

    See the juxtaposition of ‘old’ and ‘new Europe’ in the run-up to the Iraq war.

  8. 8.

    See the contributions to Hehir (2011) by David Chandler, Philip Cunliffe and Mary Ellen O’Connell.

  9. 9.

    See the struggle over what to do with North Korean nuclear armament.

  10. 10.

    Cf. the contributions of critical IR, for example, Jahn (2012).

References

  • Albert, M., Brock, L., & Wolf, K.-D. (2000). Civilizing World Politics. Society and Community Beyond the State. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend, A. C., & Beck, R. (1998). International Law and the Recourse to Force: A Shift in Paradigm. In C. Ku & P. F. Diehl (Eds.), International Law – Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 327–355). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beestermöller, G., Haspel, M., & Trittmann, U. (Eds.). (2006). ‘What We Are Fighting for …’ Friedensethik in der transatlantischen Debatte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, A., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. (2006). Constitutionalism in International Law: Comment on a Proposal from Germany. Harvard International Law Journal, 47(1), 223–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., Goldmann, M., & Venzke, I. (2017). From Public International to International Public Law: Translating World Public Opinion into International Public Authority. European Journal of International Law, 28(1), 115–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J., & Lutz-Bachmann, M. (Eds.). (1997). Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe, M., O’Connell, M. E., & Ronzitti, N. (Eds.). (2005). Redefining Sovereignty. The Use of Force After the Cold War. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, L. (1999). Normative Integration und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit auf internationaler Ebene. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 6(2), 323–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, L. (2005). The Use of Force in the post-Cold War Era: From Collective Action Back to pre-Charter Self-help? In M. Bothe, M. E. O’Connell, & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), Redefining Sovereignty. The Use of Force after the Cold War (pp. 21–52). Ardsley: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, L., & Deitelhoff, N. (2012). Der normative Bezugsrahmen der Internationalen Politik: Schutzverantwortung und Friedenspflicht. In B. Schoch et al. (Eds.), Friedensgutachten 2012 (pp. 99–111). Berlin: Lit Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2002). Humanitarian Intervention and International Political Theory. In A. Mosely & R. Norman (Eds.), Human Rights and Military Intervention (pp. 153–169). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2009). Sovereignty, Rights and Justice – International Political Theory Today. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2011). Just War and Political Judgment in Theory and Practice (Paper 1092, ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik 2011, Section 49, Just Peace Governance, Panel 430: Just War Theory for the 21st Century).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2013a). The Antipolitical Theory of Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2013b). The Poverty of Grand Theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. (1986). Kelsen and International Law. In R. Tur & W. Twining (Eds.), Essays on Kelsen (pp. 321–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman, S. (2002). Legality Versus Legitimacy – Humanitarian Intervention, the Security Council, and the Rule of Law. Security Dialogue, 33(3), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin, C. M., & Kaldor, M. (2017). International Law and New Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G., & Sohn, L. B. (1958). World Peace through World Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I., Kaempf, S., Reus-Smit, C., & Tannock, E. (2017, Forthcoming). Crisis in the Laws of War? Beyond Compliance and Effectiveness. European Journal of International Relations, Published Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117714528.

  • Daase, C. (2013). Die Legalisierung der Legitimität. Die Friedens-Warte, 88(1–2), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Rothchild, D., & Zartmann, W. I. (1996). Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (Ed.). (1991). Just War Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (2002). How to Fight a Just War. In K. Booth & T. Dunne (Eds.), Worlds in Collision – Terror and the Future of Global Order (pp. 263–269). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enns, F. (2013). Gerechter Frieden zwischen Interventionsverbot und Schutzgebot – Das ethische Dilemma der Gewaltanwendung. In I.-J. Werkner & D. Rademacher (Eds.), Menschen geschützt – gerechten Frieden verloren? Kontroversen um die internationale Schutzverantwortung in der christlichen Friedensethik (pp. 95–109). Münster: Lit Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (1996). Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention. In P. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National Security (pp. 153–185). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano, A. (2005). Redefining Sovereignty via International Constitutional Moments? In M. Bothe, M. E. O’Connell, & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), Redefining Sovereignty. The Use of Force After the Cold War (pp. 335–364). Ardsley: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, A., Brock, L., & Müller, H. (Eds.). (2006). Democratic Wars. Looking at the Dark Side of Democratic Peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, A., Müller, H., & Schörnig, N. (Eds.). (2013). The Militant Face of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1997). Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of 200 Years Hindsight. In J. Bohman & M. Lutz-Bachmann (Eds.), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (pp. 113–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1999, April 29). Bestialität und Humanität – Ein Krieg an der Grenze zwischen Recht und Moral. Die Zeit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2006). The Divided West (C. Cronin, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2012). The Crisis of the European Union in the Light of a Constitutionalization of International Law. European Journal of International Law, 23(2), 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hehir, A. (2011). The Responsibility to Protect and International Law. In P. Cunliffe (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect – Interrogating Theory and Practice (pp. 84–100). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Independent International Commission on Kosovo (IICK). (2000). The Kosovo Project: Conflict, International Response, Lesson Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, B. (2012). Humanitarian Intervention – What’s in a Name? International Politics, 49(1), 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justenhoven, H.-G., & O’Connell, M. E. (Eds.). (2016). Peace through Law – Reflections on Pacem in Terris from Philosophy, Law, Theology, and Political Science. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (1999). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1793/1996). On the Common Saying: That May be Correct in Theory, But It is of No Use in Practice. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Practical Philosophy. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (pp. 273–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1795/1996). Toward Perpetual Peace. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Practical Philosophy. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (pp. 311–352). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1944). Peace through Law. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1964/1986). The Function of a Constitution, Translated by Iain Stewart. In R. Tur & W. Twining (Eds.), Essays on Kelsen (pp. 109–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J., Peters, A., & Ulfstein, G. (Eds.). (2009). The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, W. A., & Frazer, E. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M. (2009). Miserable Comforters. International Relations as New Natural Law. European Journal of International Relations, 15(3), 395–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F. (2014). The Status of Law in World Society – Meditations on the Role and Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, H., & Nolte, G. (2016). The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline? (KFG Working Paper Series 1). Berlin Potsdam Research Group ‘The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?’

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm, M., Havercroft, J., Dunoff, J., & Wiener, A. (2017). Editorial. The End of ‘the West’ and the Future of Global Constitutionalism. Global Constitutionalism, 6(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdavi, M. (2015). A Postcolonial Critique of Responsibility to Protect in the Middle East. Perception, 10(1), 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, D. (2004). The Security Council. From the Cold War to the 21st Century. Boulder: Lyenne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maus, I. (2007). Verfassung oder Vertrag – Zur Verrechtlichung internationaler Politik. In P. Niesen & B. Herborth (Eds.), Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik (pp. 350–382). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niesen, P. (2010). Internationale Politische Theorie – Eine disziplingeschichtliche Einordnung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 17(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, M. E. (2011). The Responsibility to Peace: A Critique of R2P. In P. Cunliffe (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect – Interrogating Theory and Practice (pp. 123–154). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal, B. (2003). International Law from Below. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, W. M. (2000). Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention. European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlabach, G. W. (2007). Just Policing, Not War – An Alternative Response to World Violence. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B. (1999). NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects. European Journal of International Law, 10(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (2017). Bellum Iustum and Liberum Ius ad Bellum in 19th Century International Legal Discourse – Deconstructing a Myth. Ethical Perspectives, 24(1), 79–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (2018). The Myth of Liberum Ius ad Bellum –Forgotten Disputes about Justifying War in 19th Century International Legal Discourse. European Journal of International Law, 29(1), 72–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, A.-M., & Burke-White, W. (2002). An International Constitutional Moment. Harvard International Law Journal, 43, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, G. (1999). Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution. Political Studies, 47(3), 590–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, V. (2017). Governing Migration through Death in Europe and the US: Identification, Burial and the Crisis of Modern Humanism. European Journal of International Relations, 23(3), 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tèson, F. (1988). Humanitarian Intervention – An Inquiry into Law and Morality. New York: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T. C. (2008). Two Faces of Liberalism. Kant, Paine, and the Question of Intervention. International Studies Quarterly, 52(3), 449–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (1962). Kant, Liberalism and War. American Political Science Review, 56(2), 331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1977). Just and Unjust Wars – A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (1999). The US, Iraq and the Use of Force in a Unipolar World. Survival, 41(4), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, N. (2000). Saving Strangers – Humanitarian Intervention and International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. (2014). A Theory of Contestation. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International Authority and Its Politicization. International Theory, 4(1), 69–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Lothar Brock

Authors
  1. Lothar Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Mathias Albert

  2. University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom

    Anthony F. Lang Jr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brock, L. (2019). Between Sovereign Judgment and the International Rule of Law: The Protection of People from Mass Atrocities. In: Albert, M., Lang Jr., A. (eds) The Politics of International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93278-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation