Legitimacy and humanitarian intervention : who should intervene?

Abstract

I consider who should undertake humanitarian intervention. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or sub-regional organisation, a state, a group of states, or someone else? This thesis answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. The thesis then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current agents of humanitarian intervention actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. Overall, I develop a particular conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. I use this conception of legitimacy to assess not only the current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.