Iraq, human rights concerns, and legal justifications for war

[Sanford Levinson]

Judy's point is accurate, of course, but then there's Bill Clinton.  The "problem" with focusing on human rights is that, inevitably, one will be asked why one simply sits back and watches abuses taking place instead of intervening.  One can start off with sanctions, but, if they're not successful, then the question of use of military force will almost inevitably arise.  Consider the situation in Sudan right now.  And we have to address the possibility that a competently managed war in Iraq, i.e., one in which there would have been enough troops at the outset to effectively police Baghdad and prevent the descent into immediate chaos, might actually have had some measure of success.  Would the war be such a self-evident mistake under this alternate reality?  Is humanitarian intervention never justified, at least if Congress assents with full knowledge that that is what is assenting to (and spending American lives on)?
 
sandy

________________________________

From: Judith Baer [mailto:JBAER at politics.tamu.edu]
Sent: Thu 8/18/2005 9:38 AM
To: Sanford Levinson; Scarberry, Mark; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Iraq, human rights concerns, and legal justifications for war


Sandy L wrote:
 
I continue to find the rhetoric and vision of the "internaional human rights community" attractive in lots of respects.  It was Jimmy Carter's achievement to make that an important part of American policy (to the derision of most "realist" conservatives at the time), and I'd hate to see it given up. 
 
 
Carter didn't implement it by starting wars, Sandy.
 
Judy Baer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050818/7784db12/attachment.html