Question: At the outset, please choose one question to answer and take a few sentences to craft a coherent, thoughtful response. Also, after you're done writing your individual response, and if you have time or are so disposed, please feel free to interact kindly but constructively with your fellow classmates. Our goal here is to replicate (as much as possible) a dynamic classroom atmosphere.
1. Between the sovereignty norm and human rights, which should we be most loath and reticent to see violated? In other words, when the two norms conflict, which should we prioritize? Can you think of an effective way to balance these two competing norms/ideals?
2. Do you think humanitarian interventions should always be initiated and/or led by a multilateral coalitions of states and international agencies? Or can a state justifiably wage it in a unilateral fashion?
3. Using the arguments and examples discussed in lecture, do you think humanitarian intervention is (A) justified in some cases and/or (B) morally required in others? Explain your reasoning.
4. Assess Robert Pape's argument for pragmatic humanitarian interventions. Do you think he assesses Libya and Syria about right - in light of any evidence you can find - or do you think he underestimates some of the difficulties in determining whether or not a genocide is likely to occur? In determining whether intervention will be successful? What are the implications either way for humanitarian interventions writ large?