Autoridade legítima e intervenções armadas humanitárias na teoria da guerra justa de Michael Walzer: avaliação crítica e alternativas normativas

Abstract

Michael Walzer considers that there is not moral difference in discriminate as legitimate an agency to perform AHI. All international society is entitled to do it through the rule “who can, should!”, since there are capacity to act and special relationships with the victims. The core of this moral rule is the picture of rescue. The paper argues that the rule “who can, should!”is morally flawed because is based on a reductionism from the moral expectations of the victims that as members of international society have a claim to being rescued by institutions that respect Human Rights. Besides ignore the moral expectations of the victims the rule who can, should! is grounded in a blurred description of International Relations. I claim that in the current global scenario there are a moral expectation that victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing must be saved by international institutions that have a moral specific property, namely trust, in reason of the Human Rights promisses. In this case, legitimate authority is a moral requirement of AHI and a guarantee against abuses of Power.