Moral Agency and Moral Responsibility in Humanitarian Intervention

This paper sets out a preliminary taxonomy of potential collective moral agents in humanitarian intervention, based on six recent cases involving international organisations. The settings for the cases are Northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, Rwanda, and Kosovo. Attributing moral responsibility to a group actor requires first discovering whether its characteristics are enough like an individual moral agent's to support an analogy. Groups in humanitarian intervention that appear to choose between one course of action and another, and have a clear structure of leadership and a capacity to control their collective activities, meet criteria that characterise individual moral agents. If they can also distinguish between policies using the language of morality we can call them collective moral agents, and hence subject to some moral responsibilities.     

The Soviet reaction to ‘Eurocommunism’

Assertion of independence from Moscow by some West European Communist parties, inaccurately known as ‘Eurocommunism’ has caused angry reaction by Soviet Russia, especially when those parties have criticised the internal policies of the Soviet government in the matter of civil rights. The Soviet Union is also apprehensive about the possible effects of ‘Eurocommunism’ on the cohesion of the Communist bloc. But this apprehension should not be exaggerated. The USSR can still rely on the Western Communist parties for support for its foreign policy, and can exercise control over them in various ways. There is no probability of a break between the USSR and any Western Communist party in the foreseeable future.     

Research integrity — it's about more than misconduct

The definition of integrity is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change" (meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary). Yet research integrity is frequently discussed through the lens of misconduct or concerns around reproducibility. However, as we can see from this quote, integrity is about more than that. It is about who you are as a person and your behaviour. Your behaviour in terms of how you do your work, towards your immediate colleagues and towards those with whom you communicate; whether across the research and innovation (R&I) system or the general public.     

A just soldier's dilemma: facing a war that does not meet jus ad bellum criteria

In our challenging times individuals in military services may find themselves in the position of being called to contribute to a war whose overall justice they personally find morally suspect, or about which they have moral qualms. The right course of action in this situation can be a serious dilemma. Applying the principle of double effect to this dilemma recognizes essential state responsibility for war, but does not discount the soldier's personal moral responsibilities or individual will. This novel application of the principle of double effect treats damage produced by participating in a questionable war as a side-effect of pursuing other—clearly justifiable—intentions. The just war tradition already uses the principle of double effect when weighing the permissibility of individuals' acts in war, such as choosing bombing targets. The proposal here is to evaluate the decision to contribute to the war effort at all. This adaptation of the classic just war principle of double effect can be used to justify some—but not all—individual participation when a war's state-level justification is suspect.