Thesis (MPhil (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Are violent and non-violent mass atrocities morally different? According to the United Nations,
they are. But why? The answer to this question is important as it in part determines our obligations
to people living in other countries. This thesis seeks to determine if violent and non-violent
mass atrocities are morally different and, if not, whether the latter should be included under the
United Nations’ doctrine of the responsibility to protect. In order to do this, the thesis first examines
the conditions under which sovereignty exists in order to understand when intervention
can occur. It also analyzes just war theory to discern when military intervention to halt nonviolent
mass atrocities is justified. Having established these two concepts, the thesis then presents
three arguments for why non-violent mass atrocities are morally indistinguishable from
violent ones and should also be included under the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. A
discussion of the feasibility of implementing this extension and the long-term effects of these
types of interventions follows. Finally, the thesis contains three case studies in order to apply the
arguments presented earlier. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is daar ‘n morele verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade? Volgens die
Verenigde Nasies is daar so ‘n verskil, maar hoekom? Die antwoord tot hierdie vraag is deels belangrik
omdat dit ons verantwoordelikhede tot mense in ander lande bepaal. In hierdie tesis word
daar gepoog om te bepaal of daar so ‘n verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade
is, en, indien nie, of nie-gewelddadige gruweldade ook moet tel onder die Verenige Nasies
se verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm. Die tesis poog eerstens om die kondisies vir soewereiniteit
te bepaal ten einde te probeer verstaan wanneer ‘n intervensie moreel regverdigbaar is. Dit
analiseer ook die teorie van geregverdigde oorlogvoering ten einde te bepaal wanneer militêre
inmenging om nie-gewelddadige gruweldade stop te sit geregverdig is. Na hierdie twee konsepte
ondersoek is word daar drie argumente verskaf om aan te toon dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade
nie moreel onderskeibaar is van gewelddadige gruweldade nie, en dus dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade
onder die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm behoort te tel. Dit word gevolg deur ‘n
bespreking van die praktiese haalbaarheid van die implementering van so ‘n uitbreiding van die
verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm, asook ‘n bespreking van die langtermyn effekte van hierdie
tipes intervensies. Die tesis eindig met drie gevallestudies ten einde die argumente wat reeds gemaak
is toe te pas.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/2197 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Hayes, Kelli A. |
| Contributors | Van Niekerk, Anton A., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds