Exploring the hypothesis that at the centre of a unified and coherent theory of international justice is the idea of the duty to protect." Terry Nardin, "International political theory and the question of justice", 464

Extraits

[...] Nozick argues that current distributions are the residues of past actions, just or unjust. ‘Distributive justice' and ‘just war' can be seen as one single theory. The moral logic of humanitarian intervention can unite just war theory and theories of international distributive justice. Justice and coercion: Unjust coercion is called violence. An ‘innocent', not engaged in coercive interference, is the premise of all morally justified coercion. Self- defence is the only just cause recognized in positive international law. States have a right of self preservation, just like individuals, from unjustified attacks, that are called aggressions. [...]

[...] There are both moral and prudential grounds in international cooperation, and by coercively required tax could be a solution, as Kant suggests. We need to define the agent of this duty to protect, because he has to be identified to be enforced. The option to consider the international community as a whole is not valid. As a matter of fact, it's not organized. International institutions could also be a solution; nevertheless they are rather within than of the international community. [...]

[...] Exploring the hypothesis that at the centre of a unified and coherent theory of international justice is the idea of the duty to protect.” Terry Nardin, "International political theory and the question of justice" Terry Nardin explains in this article his theory of the ‘duty to protect'. As far as he is concerned, the major issues are a better definition of the issues of international justice and a solution to the problem of enforcement in international justice. The international justice issue is two-fold: justice in war and justice in relations to economic inequalities (‘international distributive justice' or ‘global distributive justice') are the two issues. [...]

[...] Not resisting violence would mean to become a passive accomplice. Theoretically, the way we ground this responsibility to protect matters. Morality is more powerful than beneficence, because it implies that egoism or indifference are unjust and can be punished, even though the harm comes from a non-human cause. How far does that duty extend? A non enforceable duty would be a nonsense, what is optional is only the means in the ‘duty to protect' theory. Harm results of violence or misfortune that is often linked. [...]

[...] This duty to intervene is not easy to state, because it means it is impermissible not to protect victims of violence. This duty has two grounds: The principle of beneficence implies that every person has a duty to further the well-being of others (Kant's second formulation of the fundamental principle of morality or ‘respect'), without being obligated to do more than he reasonably can, given hey have concerns on their own. And no one may provide assistance by impermissible means. [...]