O tema da não-intervenção

entre a Moral e a Prudência

Abstract

This article examines the principle of non-intervention in international relations through the philosophical lenses of Michael Walzer and John Rawls. While both thinkers emphasize the centrality of human rights, they offer distinct approaches to the justification of intervention. Walzer advocates a moral analysis rooted in common moral judgments and proposes the legalist paradigm of aggression, allowing exceptions to non-intervention in cases such as secession, counter-intervention, and humanitarian crises. Rawls, on the other hand, establishes a liberal political framework that limits state sovereignty when basic human rights are violated, legitimizing intervention against outlaw states. The paper also discusses critiques by David Luban and Charles Beitz, who question the moral adequacy of rigid respect for state sovereignty. Finally, the views of Jerome Slater and Terry Nardin are presented as a middle ground, balancing moral justification with practical prudence. The study concludes that a nuanced approach, which incorporates both moral and pragmatic considerations, offers the most coherent perspective on justified intervention in the international sphere.