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.

Referral to rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: practitioners and the process of decision-making

The study aimed to examine the factors influencing referral to rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury (TBI) by using social problems theory as a conceptual model to focus on practitioners and the process of decision-making in two Australian hospitals. The research design involved semi-structured interviews with 18 practitioners and observations of 10 team meetings, and was part of a larger study on factors influencing referral to rehabilitation in the same settings. Analysis revealed that referral decisions were influenced primarily by practitioners' selection and their interpretation of clinical and non-clinical patient factors. Further, practitioners generally considered patient factors concurrently during an ongoing process of decision-making, with the combinations and interactions of these factors forming the basis for interpretations of problems and referral justifications. Key patient factors considered in referral decisions included functional and tracheostomy status, time since injury, age, family, place of residence and Indigenous status. However, rate and extent of progress, recovery potential, safety and burden of care, potential for independence and capacity to cope were five interpretative themes, which emerged as the justifications for referral decisions. The subsequent negotiation of referral based on patient factors was in turn shaped by the involvement of practitioners. While multi-disciplinary processes of decision-making were the norm, allied health professionals occupied a central role in referral to rehabilitation, and involvement of medical, nursing and allied health practitioners varied. Finally, the organizational pressures and resource constraints, combined with practitioners' assimilation of the broader efficiency agenda were central factors shaping referral. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.