The issue of humanitarian intervention has become increasingly prominent in worldwide debates regarding its role in ethics and legitimacy in international relations. Uncertainty arises as to whether there are any moral obligation for humanitarian intervention and the concerning justifications of the violation of state sovereignty. In viewing the matter ethically and applying Immanuel Kant’s principle of cosmopolitan law from his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, humanitarian intervention can be established as a conflict between a cosmopolitan responsibility, which is to protect and promote human rights because of their universality, and an obligation to respect state sovereignty as a crucial basis for moral and political international order. Inevitably, fulfilling one set of responsibilities can involve the violation of the other in situations for example where governments are actively abusing the fundamental rights of their own citizens. Many Third World leaders, consider the concept of humanitarian intervention to be potentially destabilising for the international system, and view it as an excuse for more powerful nations to undermine and threaten their state sovereignty (Ayoob, 2004; p.99). By using the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as a reference point, this essay will investigate the relationships between states when dealing with human rights standards and cultural differences. In examining the doctrine of ‘the responsibility to protect’, this essay will justify humanitarian intervention as a moral requirement of international order by focusing on the idea that the broader community of states must assume the responsibility of intervention when individual sovereign states are unw... ... middle of paper ... ...World suspicions as being the West’s manipulation for power, I have justified the need for intervention through the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948). the need for an international ‘responsibility to protect’. Through a brief overview of standardised political theory, I justified humanitarian intervention as a moral requirement for humanity. However, although the interest for a state to intervene must be weighed up against the outcomes of the intervention and no personal agendas from outside states can influence such interactions. In concluding the responsibility to protect encompasses the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, the broader community of states must assume that responsibility as fellow citizens of the international community.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.”
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
Since its adoption by world leaders at the World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (herein R2P) has been hailed as a major achievement in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing that would be committed by rulers. However, some see the R2P not as an effective human right instrument for civilians’ protection as it appears to be another tool for imperialism. My position in this essay is that I believe the R2P doctrine is a considerable achievement in world politics as it signals to potential perpetrators of mass atrocities that the world would no longer stand by, but will use force when necessary to protect innocent civilians. My position is articulated as follows. First, I will present the content/principles of the R2P doctrine . Second, I will point out the legal and moral argument underpinning the R2P, particularly its military aspect. Finally I will evoke some cases where the R2P has been critical in protecting populations from mass killing and show the shortcoming of those who argue against the R2P.
A discrepancy exists given that although this is regarded as unlawful, the use of veto power exempts them from being held accountable. Western states hold these actions to be morally legitimate, however, it violates their state sovereignty. This is evident in the case of the United States invasion of Iraq and Syria. Consequently, Bellamy acknowledges that the responsibility to protect has been abused. Adam Branch discusses American perspective of morality over International law using the events of Kosovo. The military intervention was deemed to be morally justified by the American government, while other states believe it violated state sovereignty. It seems as a Western cultural arrogance to engage in humanitarian intervention as there always has been this notion of ‘white’s man burden.’ Branch argues that at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War marked the beginning of two important trends that were to define UN military intervention. First, the “legitimacy of military intervention through moral claims were privileged” and second, the role of the Security Council (104). Branch notes the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect has no legal standing and does not hold states accountable. I agree with Branch’s overall argument that the responsibility to protect is limited by existing
In a situation of peace, a state is responsible for the security of the people, but on the contrary when a state turns against its own people and violates the norms of human rights, does it become the responsibility of the international community to breach the sovereignty? If Responsibility to Protect (R2P) approach results in a safer society or it results in causing more disparities? The author will try to approach these questions in relation to a case study on UN resolution on Libyan humanitarian intervention.
On the cultural challenge for universal human rights, some claims historical root of human rights in Europe and America, where there are several declarations of rights and revolutions to claim a tradition of struggling for the right. Hence, the fulfill of universal human rights in other areas may come up with a significant challenge. (Kühnhardt 1991) Universal human rights also are seen as a newly formed capitalism and would intervene state sovereignty.1 Another middle approach is to search a reconciliation through cross-cultural or intercultural dialog and recognition of plurality. (Etzioni 2010; Yu 2005; An-Naim 1995), an even universality of human rights should be reached by cultural dialog.(Donnelly 1984) Back to the construction of United Nations and the tuning point of drafting the UDHR, it is a deep reflection to inhuman atrocities and moves forward to considering how to intervene states overpower to violate human rights. However, while debating human rights within cultural diversity, the issue of human wrongs disappeared.(Chen 2010) Either jumping into a linear historical prospect or
Just this past summer an estimated 2500 people died in an attempt to escape the dangers of the syrian civil war (smith). The refugee crises itself poses a danger to the global community, however, it also forces us to ask a bigger question: how far should we go to protect human dignity. In modern politics we see issues of foreign intervention and border control, and often reflect on how our world became globalized. When considering the interdependence of nations, it becomes clear to me that the value of human life stands much higher than the value of national sovereignty. This issue continuously causes clash as we call into question the purpose of governments versus the weight carried by global human rights. For the purpose of this paper consider
Unauthorized humanitarian intervention is a complex issue in international society, and is one which can be analyzed in great depth and in a multitude of different ways. Looking at this issue from moral, philosophical, and political standpoints, one may form many different arguments on how to reconcile the legal issues with the moral intuition to act to help those who are oppressed. Saving Strangers, through arguing for a single viewpoint, and Humanitarian Intervention, by compiling many different opinions, both give informative and well-written summaries of one of the more complicated problems that has affected international relations for the past few decades.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
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]