Ethics after intervention

Should warlords be empowered as statesmen

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12868455
AutoresDaniel Duarte Flora Carvalho (Universidade Federal de Pelotas, autor de correspondencia)
Año2017
Volumen16
Número1
Páginas109-109
Fecha de publicación2017-08-30
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
Revistaethic@ - An international Journal for Moral Philosophy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1677-2954 • E-ISSN: 1677-2954
EditorialUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.5007/1677-2954.2017v16n1p109
OpenAlexW2752924473
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas11

Since the end of the Cold War, when the number of peacekeeping and peacebuilding interventions considerably increased, the debate about their ethics raised as an important aspect regarding both its ends and its means. Literature was roughly divided between those who advocated for an approach centred on global actors, liberal peace and cosmopolitanism and those who stood for the role of local actors and indigenous solutions for the problems in question. In this regard, the relationship that the International Community usually held with warring parties in civil conflict came to the fore. This essay looks forward to providing insights about the role that warlords can play in facilitating and hindering internationally-led peace process. Using Burundi and Somalia as case-studies, it is argued that warlords can only commit to liberal and cosmopolitan ethics after the state institutions have been built and solidified

Commit · Cosmopolitanism · Humanitarian intervention · Indigenous · International law · Intervention (counseling · Peacebuilding · Peacekeeping · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Political Conflict and Governance · Public Administration