Extract
[...] To answer the question of imposing sustainable development even in situations of gravity and even at the price of significant losses, it seems relevant to base an argumentation based on the comparison with a concept already mentioned above, that of human rights, to show how military interventionism can be used, in the name of the common good, the general interest or the lesser evil to defend human rights. The same reasoning could therefore be used to justify military intervention to protect the environment and therefore ensure sustainable development. [...]
[...] But is it possible to defend an objective like sustainable development? For example, in the context of an announced catastrophe, despite the loss of human lives, can we justify interventionism in the name of the lesser evil? The notion of the lesser evil can it justify intervention and the idea of forced protection despite significant losses? It seems that the answer is yes, that is, the option of the lesser evil is a possible and valid solution in certain cases, which cannot avoid greater damage. [...]
[...] According to Tzvetan Todorov, a State that claims to act in the name of the good is in reality only imposing its power abusively». The border is therefore very subtle. We must indeed think that today, in globalized and capitalist societies, public power, in states of rights, has been reduced to legislative, administrative, social, and political functions. The State must, of course, guarantee individual rights and, in particular, human rights, but it cannot dictate the conditions of life for all. It is in this context that it is interesting to insert the concept of sustainable development. Can it be imposed? [...]
[...] Certainly, military intervention was not in principle prohibited, but it required prior authorization from the Security Council, in application of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. But the development of humanitarian law, particularly with the Geneva Convention of 1949 and human rights, with, in particular, the Convention against Genocide of 1948, imposed on different states a responsibility towards their population, therefore the lack of knowledge could be sanctioned. But the idea of intervening to protect populations had to face the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states and state sovereignty, the main obstacles to forced interventionism to protect a principal good, human rights. [...]
[...] The state is responsible for the protection of its territory, within the limits of its borders, and it holds, in this context, an essential societal role to carry out the necessary operations of guarantee and protection through defense, anticipation, and prevention interventions. Each state is then invited to make choices regarding sustainable development by declining its national strategy, developing various action plans, and ensuring a coherent articulation between the objectives of sustainable development and operational objectives. Sustainable development concerns, in fact, both the environmental domain and the economic, social, human, and societal domains. Who better than the State to ensure such a range of objectives? The State is the guarantor of the common good, protector of internal public order. [...]
