Freedom of expression is central value in free and democratic society. In the philosophical level, T.M. Scanlon argues that the need to protect freedom of expression follows from the importance of person’s autonomy. The state must treat and respect citizens as capable of making up their own minds. As a result, it cannot have one person responsible for something that others do because of reasons they have offered them. However, in the legal level, courts can have different reasoning for dealing hate propaganda targeting on certain group of people. Continue reading
I summarized legal argument and some issues on humanitarian intervention and War on Iraq in my previous blog post. The issues on Iraq War nevertheless started from terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The humanitarian intervention in fact has changed since then. So, what did the terrorist attacks on 911 affect on humanitarian intervention? There are two views on this question.
The idea of Humanitarian Intervention
Since 9/11, Western states have expressed humanitarian sentiments in relation to many different types of war. Humanitarian intervention poses a hard test for an international society built on idea of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the non-use of force. The society of states established law forbidding the mistreatment of civilians and recognizing basic human rights. However, these principles often conflict with non-intervention. Sovereign states are expected to act as guardians of their citizens’ security. If such state act as criminals towards their own people, should tyrannical states be recognized as legitimate members of international society?