Humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial topics in world politics today. This is due to the ethical dilemma at the core of humanitarian intervention – that it violates a state’s sovereignty in the name of upholding human rights and human security (Lang: 2002). Despite it being heavily contested, humanitarian intervention is commonly employed by international organisations today as a way to address human rights violations committed within a state’s domestic politics. Therefore, humanitarian intervention is often described as a contemporary form within the just war tradition. However, a central question is whether intervention can be legitimate and if so, under what circumstances. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of humanitarian intervention as an example of just war theory. I will open the concept to challenge by looking at what motives drive humanitarian intervention and the consequences they produce for the states, which are subjected to intervention. Then, I will look at the responsibility to protect (2001) from its origins in the United Nations peacekeeping doctrines (Lang: 2010). Observing this, I will look at how the concept of humanitarian intervention is inseparable form the context of politics and history, and particularly, the concept of power. This necessarily calls for a critical examination of humanitarian intervention, which is often considered a modern form of colonialism (what is colonialism?). In conclusion, I suggest that humanitarian intervention can be considered an example of just war theory, but it is debatable whether or not the ethical foundations of humanitarian intervention can be realised in the context of a power-motivated international world system.
To discuss wh...
... middle of paper ...
...which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, theindividual is sovereign.[22]
Whereby they could exercise humanitarian intervention as an example of a justified war – thus; the right to protect was born. The right to protect is a Canadian invention – it is simply and elaboration on previous arguments for humanitarian intervention and just war, and furthermore stipulates the utmost importance for countries to protect their own populations (Lang, 2010: 303). Noam Chomsky, however interprets this from a much more critical standpoint by looking at the practise of humanitarian intervention as it has been rationalised by the United Nations. The responsibility to protect has been largely criticised in the context of world politics.
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
Pillay, Navi. "HUMAN RIGHTS HIGH COMMISSIONER SAYS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OFFERS OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE FUTURE RESPONSE TO SITUATIONS UNITED NATIONS WAS CREATED TO PREVENT." United Nations. It's Your World. Department of Public Information, 22 Jul 2009. Web. 14 Jan 2014. .
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg
part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater
Justice in warfare has become an influential perspective. In particular the moral implication highlights the core importance of the ‘Just War’ theory. The principle was first established in ancient Rome 106-43 BC by Roman Philosopher Cicero, he stated that, ‘no war is considered just, unless it is preceded by an official demand for satisfaction or warning, and a formal declaration has been made’, (Cicero, 1913, p.38-39). Therefore, it is precedent that a war is established under the principle of justice. The theory was further coined by Roman Christian Philosopher, Augustine of Hippo (345-430 BC) and later carried on by Aquinas (1274 BC). The principle was used to pursue the question on when it was permissible to wage a war and the conduct of a war. Both Christian and Greek philosophers had conflicts on when and how to fight in a war. Therefore, the moral objective for both philosophers was to establish peace. During this period, Aquinas became one of the most influential philosophers on the just war principle. He argues that for a war to be just, it has to fulfil three criteria, ‘(1),the war had to be conducted not privately but under authority of a prince, (2) there had to be a just cause for the war, (3) it was necessary to have the right intention to promote good and avoid evil’, (Dinstein, 2005, p.64). Aquinas emphasises that the principle of jus ad bellum focuses on the moral justification for war. Whereas, the moral conduct of war is implemented through the principle of jus in Bello. Therefore, it can evaluated that the just war theory implements a set of rules to justify military warfare.
Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Set of conditions under which war is morally justified (jus ad bellum); and also ethical rules of war (jus in bello). As conditions of fair war the following was offered: its reasons have to be fair (e.g., self-defense at attack or at threat of inevitable attack), the authorities resorting to a war, precisely know that all peace alternatives and that there are reasonable hopes for success of war are settled. Two major conditions for conducting fair war are that use of force has to be "proportional" to that fair reason for which war (in the sense that the evil generated by war is begun, shouldn't exceed the benefit represented by the fair reason) and that it is necessary to carry out distinction between military and innocent (citizens not participating in operations) which shouldn't be killed. The concept of fair war was developed in early Christian church; in the 4th century over it St. Augustine reflected; in the 17th century it was divided by Gugo Grotsy. In the subsequent time interest to this concept decreased. It again increased in the 20th eyelid in connection with development of the nuclear weapon (which use, according to some researchers, could violate proportionality and differentiation conditions), and also in connection with emergence of "humanitarian interventions", directed on putting an end to genocide and other crimes committed in borders of the certain state.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
Is war ever the right or wrong thing to do? Political Realists claim that war is just and permissible only when it is in the best interest of a state. Further, they argue morality has no place in determining the justifiability of war. In considering the legitimacy of war, I will first analyze one main argument in support of 'Political Realism', after which I will critique the argument, which I provided in support of political realism.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]