A vital philosopher, Charles Beitz, has defined the realm of “cosmopolitan ethical theory,” which takes responsibility for providing ethical guidelines to evaluate the general level of world governance. According to Beitz, the included rules are demanding, though they generally require more from the representatives of those who, at least in advanced industrial societies, have the most resources and influence in the global system. Earth is not the private property of those lucky enough to have become citizens of these countries; citizens of less fortunate countries, as well as future generations, have rights to use and develop the earth, and future generations have the right to inherit a world more or less as favorable as the one we inherited.
Thus, ethical considerations might be compared with global public reasoning. Many institutions govern the world at several levels—states, substates, regions, and the world as a whole—interconnected such that actions at one level inevitably affect others at other levels. These faculties must be evaluated and guided by ordinary standards. Actions taken at one level of global governance often affect many others and must be seen in the broadest possible perspective.
Humanitarian intervention is a military intervention with humanitarian aims by external parties. Military force may not be used unless it can spare civilians from slaughter. Even a 24-hour delay may cost many lives. It may kill many throughout an interim period.
Many difficult ethical choices may arise in the context of peacekeeping. In a field like peacekeeping, where the nature of adversarial relationships with opponents and the high stakes faced by many security dilemmas were absent, ethicists could make their choices by referencing other normative considerations. Epistemic trust is now reposed in a broader range of persons than ever.