| Humanitarian intervention is generally defined as coercive military action by one state against a foreign state with the express purpose of halting or preventing massive human rights atrocities in an emergency situation. This idea is usually framed within the discourse of cosmopolitanism. The reason we often associate the notion of humanitarian intervention with that of cosmopolitanism is because of the assumption that a universal legal and moral order can and should include an international legal capacity for military force. But the paradigm of humanitarian intervention includes some important presuppositions, without which, the idea loses its force, both on an abstract philosophical level, and on a practical moral one. My work consists in an effort to unravel some of the deeply ingrained assumptions made within the humanitarian intervention paradigm, but with an aim to maintain, uphold and develop the notion of cosmopolitanism. The purpose of this thesis, then, is to illustrate that there is a fundamental incompatibility with the idea of humanitarian intervention and cosmopolitanism.;The second step is to challenge some of the important assumptions we make about cosmopolitanism. I argue that the idea of cosmopolitanism, if it is not to be hijacked for imperial purposes, must be able to withstand the demands of patriotism in what I have framed as a 'cosmopolitan patriotism'. The reason for this is that I see this route as the only one which can allay legitimate fears that cosmopolitan humanitarian intervention in practice can only result in global despotism and cultural annihilation. By making the demands of the cosmopolitan less stringent, and more open to the needs and realities of citizens of both local and the global communities, I account for a cosmopolitanism which is inclusive, plural, and responsible. I argue that while the current model of humanitarian intervention within a cosmopolitan frame encourages military action, it paradoxically encourages citizen passivity. This in effect, contradicts and undermines the goals of cosmopolitanism.;Framed in this way, I show that the underlying reason that humanitarian intervention is incompatible with cosmopolitanism is because ultimately it subverts the goals of the cosmopolitan, which is to build a safer world, protect the plurality of its diverse citizens, and engage in the common project of the advancement of humanity. While I maintain the core principles of the cosmopolitan project, to build a more secure and stable place for all citizens of the world, I argue that this project should not, and cannot replace international law and its core principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction. We must frame cosmopolitanism in terms of a revised, updated legal international order which is based on a conceptual shift in the way we have framed not only regional conflicts, but our relationship to them. This conceptual shift upsets any comfort we may have found in humanitarian intervention as a method of protecting human life, but it is a necessary shift if we are to make any effective efforts in the contribution of global peace, security and stability.;Key words. Humanitarian intervention, cosmopolitanism, philosophy, political science, ethics, sovereignty, patriotism, legitimacy, legality, media.;To show the incompatibility with humanitarian intervention and cosmopolitanism, I begin by challenging the main arguments used to legitimize humanitarian intervention. While this part of the work addresses some of the main claims for legitimacy, much effort is put into unraveling the myths behind the moral case for humanitarian intervention. Because the force of the arguments supporting humanitarian intervention are primarily moral, my work illustrates the weakness in that position by challenging the way that we look at foreign conflicts, and especially the way we interpret our role in foreign conflict. Exposing the kinds of assumptions we make when assessing regional conflicts in foreign places unsettles ideas about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. This is the first step in showing the incompatibility of humanitarian intervention with cosmopolitanism. |
