In their essay, Howard and Donnelly explain that because international institutions such as the United Nations have limited power, “many states have chosen to make human rights a concern in their bilateral foreign relations” and decide to “intervene…on behalf of human rights.” The authors further argue (referencing Slater and Nardin, Beitz, and Matthews and Pratt) that “moral considerations in at least some circumstances justify human intervention on behalf of human rights.” The authors explain that the principle that underlies such an argument is the supreme moral importance of human rights, such that “gross and systematic violations present a moral justification for remedial international actions.” Even so, Howard and Donnelly recognize that there is considerable variation in the way states treat human rights violators. Why do we intervene in some cases of severe human rights violations and not in others—even though intervention would be morally justified, according to Howard and Donnelly’s criteria?
Sample Solution