Duties beyond borders:
Ethics & morals in foreign
policy
February 27, 2014
Overview






Duties beyond borders
Theories of foreign policy and duties beyond
borders
Are foreign policies becoming kinder and
gentler?
The tragedy of Rwanda
Libya: case of interests or responsibilities?
Other cases
Duties beyond borders
Conventional view:
 States make and implement policies
based on own their interests, typically
defined by power or wealth.
 States have obligations only to their
own citizens
 The duties of states stop at their
territorial boundaries
However, in practice states do integrate
ethics into their foreign policies:
 Attempting to improve the welfare of
distant strangers
 Acting to save the lives of strangers
States increasingly expressing a
commitment to aiding those outside
their borders (debt relief, human rights,
increased access, humanitarian
intervention)
 Role of activitst organisations,
transnational connections, information
flow etc

Two key question when considering
ethical obligations
 Who do we owe obligations to?
 How do we decide right action?
To whom do we owe obligations?
Communitarianism
 Your own group/community, in IR this
usually means your state
 Social contract & sovereignty
Cosmopolitanism
 Territorial borders don’t impact our
obligations to others
 All people have equal moral worth
How do we decide right action?
Principles
 Deontological - judge actions based on
pre-established principles
Consequences
 Consequentialist - judge actions based
on their results- amount of benefit/harm
they create
Humanitarianism
The provision emergency relief to those
whose lives are in danger
 Have seen significant expansion of the
humanitarian system of states, nonstates, IGOs, NGOs, civil society actors,
etc.
 All based on a growing awareness of
others and a greater sense of personal
obligation

Theories of foreign policy and duty
beyond borders
Realist theories - states do not exhibit
humanitarian duty to others
 In a self-help world, states must help
themselves.
 States are most likely to help others when it
furthers their own interests.
 Rarely sacrifice for others and use highminded ideals to camouflage their true
motives.
Realist normative argument:
 States role is protect the national
interest, not deplete their own resources
and manpower to help others.
 States may provide aid and food but are
rarely willing to sacrifice their citizens.
Liberalism suggests that states do and
should have duties beyond borders.
Domestic mobilization:
 the key influence of domestic politics
and interest groups in shaping a state’s
foreign policy (anti-slavery movement)
Interdependence:
 visual – awareness of the plight of others
(internet/media coverage).
 causal, our beliefs causing us to act because
we believe it is the moral thing to do
Obligation:
 Stemming from belief in human reason,
liberty, autonomy and freedom
Intervention & controversy

Colonization:
 Misplaced notions of humanitarianism
helped support the belief that colonialism
was justified because the West could and
should help “civilize” the rest of the world.
 Continue to see disagreement around
intervention and humanitarianism and idea
that that liberal states have right to interfere.
 Coalitions have formed in favour of
humanitarian intervention, but still see various
critics (imperial project, etc.).
Constructivist theories:
 State’s identity & interests influenced by
international society
 States’ interests not defined just by
security and wealth but also various
principles (commitment to human rights
and the spread of democracy)

The populace wants to believe their
foreign policy is driven by ethical
principles, not just the pursuit of power
(E.H. Carr).
 States want their foreign policies to appear
legitimate to others (be seen to be willing
to defend universal principles).
 So see a desire to at least appear to be
following principles
Are foreign policies becoming
kinder and gentler?
Increasingly states are motivated to help others
- why?
Realists: motivations are rooted in a state’s
pursuit of security, power, and wealth.
Liberals: globalization and communications
revolution enable greater awareness.
Constructivists: interconnections among
states renders humanitarianism tied to each
state’s security interest.
The tragedy of Rwanda
Beginning in April 1994 and over 100 days,
roughly 800,000 casualties of genocide:
 What did the United Nations do?
 The UN reduced its presence.
 The UN Security Council decided not to
intervene.
 States unwilling to contribute troops.

The international community’s indifference to
Rwanda brought tremendous shame to the
UN Security Council and the UN itself.
 In 2005 the UN General Assembly adopted
core features of “responsibility to protect”
document at the 2005 world summit.
 Proposed document stated that when states
fail in their obligations to protect their citizens,
the international community inherits that
responsibility.
Responsibility to Protect, R2P
Commitment made by world leaders at
2005 UN World Summit
 Developed out of recognition of failure
of international community to act
 An effort to lay out conditions and
responsibilities for states and the
international community in cases of the
most serious humanitarian crimes:


genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes
R2P
Sets out 3 key principles:
1. The state has primary responsibility to
protect its people
2. International community has
responsibility to assist and encourage
states in fulfilling this responsibility
3. International community should use
appropriate means to protect
populations if states fail to do so
Libya: case of interests or
responsibilities?

March 2011 Security Council authorizes
intervention in Libya


Suggests how a combination of interests and
values can push even lukewarm powerful states
into a supporting role.
Washington initially reluctant to get involved
eventually supports intervention

Role of veterans of Rwanda in administration and
supporters of the responsibility to protect, who
were unwilling to see genocide occur when they
could do something about it.
Other interventions…or not
Côte d’Ivoire
 March 2011, Security Council mandates
sanctions and limited intervention in
response to post-election violence
Central African Republic
 Ongoing tensions escalated in all out
crisis – 400,000 displaced
 International community criticized for not
doing enough
Conclusion
Humanitarian concerns have become a
regular part of foreign policy discussions
 How we respond to these duties, and in
what situations, remains a matter of
debate
 See examples of intervention, but also
many of inaction
