 no-repeat 0 0; } @media only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2 / 1), only screen and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min-resolution: 192dpi), only screen and (min-resolution: 2dppx) { .ig-b-48 { background-image: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48@2x.png); background-size: 60px 178px; } }</style> <a href=){kind=icon}
Is an intervention in Syria morally justified?
“The ‘responsibility to protect,’ unanimously adopted at the U.N. in 2005, stipulates that when states fail to protect their own citizens from mass atrocities, other states have an affirmative responsibility to act. Only a gross cynic—say, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov—could argue that Assad has not triggered this international obligation. An intervention would be morally justified, just as it was in Libya. … But this is not a classroom; and calls for action have to clear both a prudential hurdle and a practical one.”
—James Traub, “Intervention in Syria is Morally Justified—and Completely Impractical.”
This is article is part of A TNR Symposium on Syria. Visit TNR.com for more coverage.
10 notes
-
ministerofmayhem likes this
-
smweedy reblogged this from thenewrepublic
-
jjarichardson reblogged this from thenewrepublic
-
pedrogorozpe reblogged this from thenewrepublic
-
thenewrepublic posted this
