Intervening as a Moral Duty: Michael Walzer versus a Multilateralism Approach
The article investigates different approaches to theoretical grounding of humanitarian intervention. Firstly conception of intervention offered by Walzer, who is known to be an advocate of unilateralism, is examined. For him states should be proactive and decisive in cases when human rights are violated somewhere. Schmitt’s arguments counter military actions in the name of moral issues are considered as well; while Schmitt’s ideal of politics as a sphere free of moral impurities seems to be imperfect. Multilateralism is proposed as alternative for Walzer’s and Schmitt’s approaches - humanitarian intervention may be justified as measure initiated by supra-state body.