The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism

by David Kennedy, Doug Mayhew (Illustrator)

In this provocative and timely book, David Kennedy explores what can go awry when we put our humanitarian yearnings into action on a global scale--and what we can do in response.


Rooted in Kennedy's own experience in numerous humanitarian efforts, the book examines campaigns for human rights, refugee protection, economic development, and for humanitarian limits to the conduct of war. It takes us from the jails of Uruguay to the corridors of the United Nations, from the founding of a non-governmental organization dedicated to the liberation of East Timor to work aboard an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.


Kennedy shares the satisfactions of international humanitarian engagement--but also the disappointments of a faith betrayed. With humanitarianism's new power comes knowledge that even the most well-intentioned projects can create as many problems as they solve. Kennedy develops a checklist of the unforeseen consequences, blind spots, and biases of humanitarian work--from focusing too much on rules and too little on results to the ambiguities of waging war in the name of human rights. He explores the mix of altruism, self-doubt, self-congratulation, and simple disorientation that accompany efforts to bring humanitarian commitments to foreign settings.


Writing for all those who wish that "globalization" could be more humane, Kennedy urges us to think and work more pragmatically.


A work of unusual verve, honesty, and insight, this insider's account urges us to embrace the freedom and the responsibility that come with a deeper awareness of the dark sides of humanitarian governance.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

400 pages, Paperback

First published March 29, 2004

About the author

David W. Kennedy is Manley O. Hudson Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School where he teaches international law, international economic policy, legal theory, law and development and European law.

Reviews

[Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had such a difficult time getting through this book, which is really too bad because I was very much looking forward to it. I literally didn't understand his points at times, or even his sentences. I felt like I missed an introduction book that would explain a lot of what I was missing. Probably I was the wrong audience in the end. It in general just seemed too theoretical really, until the last chapter where he laid out some great maxims. I especially liked hispoints about international humanitarists needing to take power and feel like they have power, which was a pretty solid theme throughout- humanitarians need to be more comfortable with power. tools being tools and progress not being a program, as well as it can't just be about "intervening". Good/inspiring conclusion too that international humanitarianism could promise more- heightened experience of freedom and responsibility, a profession committed to the human embrace of action. I want to take action, and i know that people in these fields too. One of the points just kept hitting me with how theoretical and abstract the book is, that's how a lot of the actual humanitarian work that he was describing is.

Since it was such a long book that covered a lot of territory, it did make me think a lot. "The transformation of political questions into legal questions, and then into questions of legal rights, has made other forms of collective emancipatory politics less available." Stories about knights reinforce stereotypes and don't make it about the people experiencing the injustice. A lot of distancing selves from clients. Policy making vocabularies dominate policy initiatives. Humanitarians often treat a structural preference as a stand in for a preferred outcome. Default preferences for some policy tools over others substitute for more careful analysis (this one really resonated as I think it's relevant in so many instances of life!). Failures to respect local cultures in some cases. A tendency to simplify the world into broad categories like east vs west, developed vs developing. Working on the tools can get in teh way of working on the problem.

The refugee chapter was most interesting, since it was concrete and told a story, in addition to the details about the aircraft carrier. I had never really considered the difference between asylum and refugee statuses, how this came to be, what it means for people. The debates about no expulsion and no admission substituting for more direct approaches (how I felt about the whole book...). Strategizing aboutt eh law is different from strategizing about the needs of refugees and the consequences of various policy paths for the cuases and solutions to refugee flow. "An institution like asylum will continue to be the perfect liminal space for the deploymet of policy making expertise, not for refugees."

Freud's excerpt was thought provoking "We had expected teh great ruling powers among the white nations upon whom the leadership of the human species has fallen, who were known to have cultivated worldwide interests, to whose creative powers were due our technical advanes in the direction of dominating nature, as well as the artistic and scientific acquisitions of the mind- peoples such as these we had expected to succeed in discovering another way of setting misunderstandings and conflicts of interest." Sign of the times that he mentioned that he had expected this of white nations. But I agree with the point that as a human species, it would seem we would have other conflict resoultion skills.

Appreciated the information on the devleopments between world wars. Funny how people redefine what aggression and self defense mean. Hammarskjold knew that principles like human rights are balanced by non intervention. Pretty basic point that countries only say other countries are making over the top war moves while their own are described as necessary. Humanitarians, I agree, do have a responsiblity to be this voice for countries over all. Civilian deaths will seem weightier to the extent they seem weightier to world public opinion. I found it surprising that he mentioned Human Rights chapter not already being towards the front of the international textbook- what could be more important in international law? Current costs are discounted, future benefits are promised in an upward spiral. More focus on ideology and the fact that the court exists than what it actually does.

Good theory that when business transactions with American military require humanitarian training- hope it actually happens. Internalizing human rights is a way to make military more effective- not just a set of restrictions, a new way of strategic thinking. Victims of own agendas, place own interests above agendas, mistake participation for humanitarianism, overstimate signifiance of legal pronouncement. He argued that there needs to be a more thoroughgoing pragmatism- which I felt about teh book in general!! Blindness sets in because humanitarians don't realize their power. Really agreed with his points about countries- denial starts you imply they are willing to take costs and put the nation at risk for virtue. Also thought provoking point that peaceful means can be more costly to humanitarian objectives. Humanitarians want to seem pragmatic and effective while being outside power, without responsibility. "It is not that our good works have sometimes been overcome by dark forces, it is that our good work however principles has itself also had dark sides." 342. Need more awareness for pragmatism about consequences and vigilance against he betrayal of humanitarian intentions.

There were some typos throughout the edition I read.