Ethics and intervention: The 'humanitarian exception' and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq

This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral reasoning on issues of war and peace. To that end, after briefly discussing the two primary legal justifications for war (implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defence), and finding them wanting, it asks whether there is a moral 'humanitarian exceptions to this rule grounded in the 'just war' tradition. The article argues that two aspects of the broad tradition could be used to make a humanitarian case for war: the 'holy war' tradition and classical just war thinking based on natural law. The former it finds problematic, while the latter it argues provides a moral space to justify the use of force to halt gross breaches of natural law. Although such an approach may provide a moral justification for war, it also opens the door to abuse. It was this very problem that legal positivism from Vattel onwards was designed to address. As a result, the article argues that natural law and legal positivist arguments should be understood as complementary sets of ideas whose sometimes competing claims must be balanced in relation to particular cases. Therefore, although natural law may open a space for justifying the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms, legal positivism strictly limits that right. Ignoring this latter fact, as happened in the Iraq case, opens the door to abuse.

Responsibility to protect or Trojan Horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq

What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments.

Pain relief for neonates in Australian hospitals: A need to improve evidence-based practice

Objective: To ascertain the extent to which neonatal analgesia was used in Australia for minor invasive procedures as an indicator of evidence-based practice in neonatology. Methods: A cross-sectional telephone survey of hospitals in all Australian states and territories with more than 200 deliveries per year was carried out. Questions were asked regarding awareness of the benefits and the use of analgesia for minor invasive procedures in term and near term neonates. Analysis was undertaken according to state and territory, annual birth numbers and the level of neonatal nursery care available. Results: Data were available from 212 of 214 eligible hospitals. Of the total respondents, 51% and 70% respectively were aware of the benefits of sucrose and breast-feeding for neonatal analgesia. Eleven per cent of units administered sucrose before venepuncture and 25% of units used breast-feeding. Ten per cent of units used sucrose before heel prick with 49% utilizing breast-feeding. Expressed breast milk was used in 10% of units. Analgesia was given less frequently before intravenous cannulation compared to venepuncture and heel prick. Awareness and implementation of neonatal analgesia varied widely in the states and territories. There was a trend for hospitals providing a higher level of neonatal care to have a greater awareness of sucrose as an analgesic (P < 0.0001) and the use of sucrose for venepuncture (P = 0.029), heel prick (P = 0.025) and intravenous catheter insertion (P = 0.013). Similar trends were found on analysis according to birth number of the maternity units. Smaller units had a greater usage of breast-feeding as an analgesic for heel prick (P = 0.017). Conclusion: Despite good evidence for the administration of sucrose and breast milk in providing effective analgesia for newborn infants, it is not widely used in Australia. It is imperative that the gap between research findings and clinical practice with regard to neonatal analgesia be addressed.

The UN Security Council and the question of humanitarian intervention in Darfur

This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of humanitarian intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed.

Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world's most threatened people. The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world's states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN's High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around intervention in future cases.

A randomised control trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache

Study Design. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial with unblinded treatment and blinded outcome assessment was conducted. The treatment period was 6 weeks with follow-up assessment after treatment, then at 3, 6, and 12 months. Objectives. To determine the effectiveness of manipulative therapy and a low-load exercise program for cervicogenic headache when used alone and in combination, as compared with a control group. Summary of Background Data. Headaches arising from cervical musculoskeletal disorders are common. Conservative therapies are recommended as the first treatment of choice. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is inconclusive and available only for the short term. There is no evidence for exercise, and no study has investigated the effect of combined therapies for cervicogenic headache. Methods. In this study, 200 participants who met the diagnostic criteria for cervicogenic headache were randomized into four groups: manipulative therapy group, exercise therapy group, combined therapy group, and a control group. The primary outcome was a change in headache frequency. Other outcomes included changes in headache intensity and duration, the Northwick Park Neck Pain Index, medication intake, and patient satisfaction. Physical outcomes included pain on neck movement, upper cervical joint tenderness, a craniocervical flexion muscle test, and a photographic measure of posture. Results. There were no differences in headache-related and demographic characteristics between the groups at baseline. The loss to follow-up evaluation was 3.5%. At the 12-month follow-up assessment, both manipulative therapy and specific exercise had significantly reduced headache frequency and intensity, and the neck pain and effects were maintained (P < 0.05 for all). The combined therapies was not significantly superior to either therapy alone, but 10% more patients gained relief with the combination. Effect sizes were at least moderate and clinically relevant. Conclusion. Manipulative therapy and exercise can reduce the symptoms of cervicogenic headache, and the effects are maintained.

Morphine has a dual concentration-dependent effect on K+-evoked substance P release from rat peripheral airways

Our previous investigations of possible lung mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of nebulized morphine for the relief of dyspnoea, have shown a high density of non-conventional opioid binding sites in rat airways with similar binding characteristics (opioid alkaloid-sensitive, opioid peptide-insensitive) to that of putative mu(3)-opioid receptors on immune cells. To investigate whether these lung opioid binding sites are functional receptors, this study was designed to determine (using superfusion) whether morphine modulates the K+-evoked release of the pro-inflammatory neuropeptide, substance P (SP), from rat peripheral airways. Importantly, K+-evoked SP release was Ca2+-dependent, consistent with vesicular release. Submicromolar concentrations of morphine (1 and 200 nM) inhibited K+-evoked SP release from rat peripheral airways in a naloxone (1 mu M) reversible manner. By contrast, 1 mu M morphine enhanced K+-evoked SP release and this effect was not reversed by 1 mu M naloxone. However, 100 mu M naloxone not only antagonized the facilitatory effect of 1 mu M morphine on K+-evoked SP release from rat peripheral airways but it inhibited release to a similar extent as 200 nM morphine. It is possible that these latter effects are mediated by non-conventional opioid receptors located on mast cells, activation of which causes naloxone-reversible histamine release that in turn augments the release of SP from sensory nerve terminals in the peripheral airways. Clearly, further studies are required to investigate this possibility. (C) 1997 Academic Press Limited.