Questions & explanations
1. Compare the human rights approach and the capabilities approach in terms of what they each emphasize most.
Both approaches focus on human well-being, but they emphasize different things. Human rights approach stresses legal and moral entitlements that every person has, like rights to food, health, and education. It demands that governments and institutions respect, protect, and fulfill these rights. The capabilities approach emphasizes actual opportunities and freedoms to achieve valuable functionings, like being well-nourished or taking part in community life. While rights are about claims, capabilities are about real ability to do things. They often overlap: rights can help secure capabilities, and capabilities show whether rights are truly enjoyed. For example, having a right to education is meaningless if schools are unavailable.
2. Compare the ethical justifications for humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping.
Both are based on the idea that the international community should help people in danger. Humanitarian intervention usually means using military force without the host state's consent to stop mass atrocities. Peacekeeping typically requires consent and is more about monitoring ceasefires and protecting civilians. Ethical justification for intervention often relies on the 'responsibility to protect' and the urgency of saving lives. Peacekeeping is justified by the need to maintain peace and protect civilians with less force. However, both face challenges: intervention can be seen as violating sovereignty, while peacekeeping can be ineffective if not given a strong mandate. Both must be done impartially and with clear goals.
3. How can peacekeeping missions better protect civilians in practice?
They can have clear and strong mandates that prioritize civilian protection, with rules of engagement that allow force when necessary. Peacekeepers need adequate numbers, equipment, and training, especially in how to de-escalate conflicts and engage with local communities. They should also work closely with humanitarian organizations to reach vulnerable people. Early warning systems and rapid response can prevent attacks. Importantly, peacekeepers must be held accountable for failures and misconduct. For example, the UN mission in South Sudan has tried to protect civilians by setting up 'protection of civilian' sites. But political will from the Security Council and troop contributors is essential for success.
4. What is a major criticism of the ICC's focus on individual criminal responsibility?
Some critics say that focusing on individual leaders ignores the broader political, economic, and social causes of mass violence. For example, prosecuting a warlord does not address the poverty, inequality, or historical grievances that fueled the conflict. Also, international courts often target lower-level perpetrators while high-level planners escape. This can create a narrow view of justice that does not help rebuild societies. Others argue that individual responsibility is important because it holds specific people accountable, but it should be part of a larger effort that includes truth commissions and reparations. So the criticism is that individual trials alone are not enough for lasting peace.
5. How does Martha Nussbaum's list of capabilities differ from a standard list of human rights?
Nussbaum's capabilities are about what people are actually able to do and be, while human rights are often about entitlements or freedoms. For example, the right to free speech is a human right; the capability to exercise that speech (e.g., being educated enough to form opinions) is a capability. Nussbaum's list includes things like being able to laugh, play, and have emotional attachments, which are not always in human rights documents. She also emphasizes practical reason and affiliation as central. Human rights law tends to focus on civil and political rights, while Nussbaum includes many social and economic aspects. Both aim at human dignity, but capabilities are more concrete about outcomes.
6. How does the principle of 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) relate to peacekeeping ethics?
R2P says that every state has a responsibility to protect its people from mass atrocities. If a state fails, the international community has a responsibility to step in, using peaceful means or, as a last resort, military force. This principle directly applies to peacekeeping because it provides a moral justification for intervention to stop genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing. Peacekeeping missions are one tool to fulfill this responsibility. However, R2P is controversial because it can be used to override national sovereignty. Ethical peacekeeping must balance protecting civilians with respecting local autonomy. It also requires clear criteria to avoid misuse for political ends.
7. How does Rawls' difference principle compare with the idea of 'equality of opportunity'?
Equality of opportunity means that everyone should have the same chance to succeed, like the same access to education and jobs. But even if everyone has equal opportunity, some people will end up richer than others. The difference principle goes further: it says that even if opportunities are equal, the resulting inequality is only fair if it helps the poorest. For example, if a smart poor child gets a good education and becomes a rich doctor, that is fine, but the difference principle also asks: does the doctor's high pay help other poor people? If not, maybe the doctor should be taxed more to help the poor. So the difference principle is more demanding than just equal opportunity.
8. Compare the philosophical foundations of human rights in natural law theory and in political constructivism.
Natural law theory says human rights come from a higher moral order, like God or reason, and exist independently of laws. They are inherent and inalienable. Political constructivism, associated with John Rawls, says human rights are principles that reasonable people would agree to in a fair system of cooperation. They are not based on any comprehensive moral doctrine but on what is necessary for a decent society. Natural law sees rights as pre-political, while constructivism sees them as part of a political agreement. Both support universal rights, but natural law grounds them in a deeper morality, while constructivism focuses on practical agreement between different cultures.
9. How does Thomas Nagel's view on global justice differ from Singer's?
Nagel argues that justice only applies within a state because it requires a sovereign authority that makes and enforces laws. He says that without a world government, there is no global justice, only humanitarian duties to help others in need. Singer, on the other hand, thinks justice applies globally because we can all affect each other and have moral obligations regardless of borders. Nagel sees a big difference between duties of justice (which are strong and require equal treatment) and duties of charity (which are weaker). Singer collapses this distinction, saying we have strong duties to prevent suffering anywhere. So Nagel is more statist, Singer more cosmopolitan.
10. Compare the ethical justifications for universal jurisdiction versus the ICC's system.
Universal jurisdiction allows any country to prosecute individuals for serious crimes like genocide, even if the crimes happened elsewhere and the accused is not a citizen. This is based on the idea that such crimes harm all humanity. The ICC system is based on a treaty and only prosecutes crimes committed on the territory of member states or referred by the UN Security Council. Universal jurisdiction can be more flexible but risks being used for political purposes. The ICC is more structured but limited by state consent. Both aim to end impunity, but universal jurisdiction can lead to conflicts between states, while the ICC relies on cooperation from member states.
11. Give an example where the universality of human rights is challenged by cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism argues that moral standards depend on local culture, so human rights may not apply everywhere. For example, some countries justify female genital mutilation (FGM) as a cultural tradition, while human rights law says it violates a girl's right to health and bodily integrity. Another example is the debate over freedom of speech: some societies limit speech that offends religion, while Western human rights norms protect it. Critics of universality say that international human rights are a Western imposition. Supporters reply that some practices are harmful regardless of culture. This tension is at the heart of debates about human rights enforcement.
12. How do critics argue that international human rights law can be a tool of Western imperialism?
Critics say that Western countries often use human rights to pressure other nations for political or economic gain, while ignoring their own violations. For example, the US invaded Iraq claiming to promote human rights, but many saw it as a war for oil. Also, international human rights standards are based on Western values like individualism, which may not fit other cultures. When Western powers impose sanctions or condemn countries for human rights abuses, it can be seen as neo-colonialism. This undermines the legitimacy of human rights law. Supporters reply that human rights are universal and not owned by the West, but the way they are used can be biased.