There are several issues across the map that raise essential questions in respect to ethics and state behavior. The main focus in this paper is explaining Peter Singer’s justification of humanitarian intervention and view point on international law featured in One World: the ethics of globalization while also examining questions such as - does the sovereignty of a state offer absolute protection against outside resources? And If and when it is ever appropriate for other states to step in without consent? The last point discusses intervention in regards to cultural imperialism, how it destroys the nation state, and the negative consequences of military intervention. In a global community, Peter Singer sees humanitarian intervention and international …show more content…
Humanitarian Intervention generally means the use of military force to ensure the preservation of life, human rights, and freedom. Therefore, many believe that external intervention is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a nation. However, when gross violations of human rights occur “punishing criminals…is something that most people would support because of their belief that this is what justice requires... If punishment can be justified, so can intervention to stop a crime that is about to occur, or is already in progress” (Singer 120). Therefore intervention is not only needed but a necessity when confronting crimes against peace and humanity. Specifically “acts that kill or inflict serious bodily or mental harm on large numbers of people, or deliberately inflict on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop” (Singer …show more content…
Many debates have concluded that imperialism seems to be among the biggest of concerns. Singer’s rebuttal is that moral relativism, “the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others”. However, that does not prevent intervention from destroying nations sovereignty nor does it take away from the fact that the costs of intervention may turn out to be much higher than the benefits. For example, imperialism is normally a term used to imply acts of aggression between states or a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Armed forces today are trained to fight with the aim of securing a quick victory and alas this simply cannot be the strategy involved in terms of humanitarian intervention. However, most acts of intervention would still enable a military task force and regrettably there are unavoidable consequences when involved in a military intervention. Using force to save lives usually involves taking lives and although military interventions are calculated to decrease the costs of innocent human lives taken there is absolutely no way to eliminate collateral damage altogether. Therefore an intervention to create peace has actually done the opposite, creating tension between the state that “benefitted” and the one that intervened. If the civilians of that nation state begin to
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.
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
Living in a third world country such as Jamaica gives you a firsthand experience on how much poverty has consumed the majority of the world. You’re driving along and you see a boy begging on the street asking a man in a mustang for some spare change. Should anyone be surprised if the man rolls up his window and ignore the poor boy? Would you have given the boy any of the spare change in the side of your car door?
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
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.
This strong mindset of prohibition initiated Walzer relaxation of the moral code it stands by, thus leading to his revisions of aspects one, two and five of the Legalist Paradigm. The revision is in regards to the second principal of the legalist paradigm placing the internal societal law of territorial integrity and political sovereignty above all, the third aspect proposing that the use of threat against the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state constitutes aggression, and fifth principal which paramoutly states that nothing but aggression can justify a war. Together these values create a strict non-interventionist policy in which it would always be unjust for a member of the international community to involves themselves in the affairs of a sovereign nation not directly pertaining to them. Walzer revises the legalist paradigm to allow for the intervention on behalf of the international community. The concept of humanitarian intervention is disputed, with Walzer defining it as a response “against the enslavement or massacre of political opponents, national minorities, and religious sects” for if the international community does not intervene, “there may well be no help unless help comes from
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
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
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]
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.