Repository | Book | Chapter
(2001) Pluralism and law, Dordrecht, Springer.
According to Joseph Raz and Christopher Morris all states necessarily claim to possess an authority over their subjects which is supreme, comprehensive, and either unlimited or only limited by self-limitation. This Hobbesian view of the self-image of the state is to be contrasted with a Lockean view, according to which the state does not claim to have itself authoritatively determined the limits to its authority, but only to have recognized their antecedent validity. The internal behaviour of constitutional states towards their own citizens turns out to be compatible with either view. Therefor I consider the external behaviour of states, in particular in cases of large-scale violations of basic human rights in other states. Intervention in such cases, even without authorization by the Security Council, seems morally legitimate, at least sometimes, and this is recognized by at least some states. This recognition should be taken into account when we try to identify the relevant opinio juris which should be taken to determine the specific content of the principle of non-intervention. I conclude that states need not make false claims to comprehensive or unlimited authority, even if they frequently do.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-2702-0_7
Full citation:
Den Hartogh, G. (2001)., Humanitarian intervention and the self-image of the state, in A. Soeteman (ed.), Pluralism and law, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 107-132.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.