The International Community has a Right to Intervene in Sovereign States in order to end Serious Human Rights Abuses? Discuss.
Humanitarian intervention is definitely one of the most controversial subjects of the recent decades- among states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia. The centre of the debate is the clash of traditional principles of state sovereignty and new adopted norms on use of force for humanitarian purposes. Despite the political controversies between the countries, humanitarian intervention is now an international norm which calls for action anytime there are serious mass life threatening occurrences in any country.
In 2001, ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) - supported by the Canadian Government - introduced a report which would advance Humanitarian Intervention concept to a "Responsibility to Protect" (or “R2P). ICISS Report referred to the "right of humanitarian intervention" as a "coercive - and in particular military - action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state" (ICISS, 2001, p. vii).
Lack of political will, disagreement in the international community, or over-rationality about the costs of intervention has caused terrible atrocities - which have taken forms of genocide or ethnic cleansing - that have cost lives of millions (Power, 2011; J. Bajorja & R. McMahon, 2013). Humanitarian Intervention's new doctrine "Responsibility to Protect" is embraced by United Nations as a necessary means to prevent and punish atrocities. Yet, there are state actors as China and Russia which challenge its implementation.
I argue that it is very important to save Humanitarian Inter...
... middle of paper ...
...reviews .
Power, S. (2011). Bystanders to Genocide. The Atlantic Monthly , 84-108.
Roth, K. (2004). War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. Human Rights Watch .
S. N. Macfarlane, C. J Thielking & T. G Weiss. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect: Is anyone interested in human intervention? Third World Quarterly , 977-992.
Secretary-General, U. (2002, February 15). Secretary-General Addresses International Peace Academy Seminar on The Responsability to Protect. UN document SG/SM/8125 .
Selfa, L. (2002). A new colonial "age of empire"? International Socialist Review .
Traub, J. (2012, February 18). The End of American Intervention . New York Times .
(1648). Treaty of Westphalia. International Relations and Security Network.
United Nations Secretary-General. (1999). Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organisation, A/54/1. United Nations.
Rieff alludes to this infusion to explain why humanitarianism is not working. The critic argues that humanitarianism, as a result of politicization, cultivated into a political blanket exploited by the “international community” in order to disguise and hide the lack of political action in humanitarian emergencies, thus delineating from the main goal of humanitarianism. To further his argument, Rieff recounts four cases of humanitarian emergencies in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia in which humanitarian efforts were not useful, carried out, or even harmful in some instances. Rieff’s frustration with this relationship is relatable; however, While I agree with Rieff in regards to humanitarianism transformative trend, Rieff fails to expound on a number of key
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...
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. .
None of the four requirements that the tribunal must meet is easily achieved, and, in some cases, success seems unlikely. Many supporters of international humanitarian law are convinced, however, that, so long as the court does no harm, it must continue to pursue its original goals. This position supports the general idea of the rule of law, without reference to the circumstances. Ordinarily, of course, justice is supposed to be above the particularities of any case. Yet the nature of the circumstances in the case of the former Yugoslavia may undermine the ICTFY's credibility and render it ineffective in obtaining justice and promoting the concept of international humanitarian law. Justice must be predicated on detachment and impartiality. But the ICTFY is essentially a first attempt at administering such justice, and the peculiarities of the test case have to be kept from contaminating the process.
Throughout history there has been a power struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors, which can be identified by the historic process of imperialism. Imperialism once thought of being a heinous action carried out by the oppressors or in other words the powerful, wealthy, and influential states. These countries venture out and try to colonize other underdeveloped countries so that they can extract resources, labor, and wealth. The oppressed are forced to abide by the rules of the powerful minority. These are things of the past, the international community has moved past barbaric imperialism. But does Imperialism still exist? Is there still hope or salvation for humanitarian intervention in today’s world? I believe that imperialism does not exist in the world today and that humanitarian intervention is still possible. To make this argument, this paper will begin with a brief explanation of the Kosovo precedent and its justification towards actions in Syria and Ukraine. I then move to an analysis offered from Liberals on the questions of imperialism and humanitarian intervention in Syria and Ukraine then will use Realist and Marxists ideology to engage in arguments. I will conclude with a brief overview and conclusion of the analysis to make a lasting impression of my feelings toward imperialism and humanitarian intervention.
...he programs that are put in place by the IMC are a means to an end; they are addressing what the IMC believes to be the root cause of the problem rather than solely addressing the immediate needs of the communities in distress. This follows in the idea of instrumental rationality (Barnett et al. 2008). The International Medical Corps looks to stop humanitarian crisis from happening in the future and this is represented in the nature of the focuses of their programs as well as their mission statement. Much of the work done by the International Medical Corps focuses on building health care systems for underserved communities that result in an improvement in the overall quality of life in those communities.
“History repeats itself”, is a commonly used phrase and it is one that can be found to hold true in many situations. Throughout history there have been many incidents in which mass murder has occurred. A modern day example of mass murder in a conflict that is ongoing is the genocides occurring in Darfur, Sudan. The corrupt government in the country supports a group called the Janjaweed, which is the militia group that is mainly responsible for the large number of Darfur residents that have been murdered, raped, or displaced (1). Although the exact number is not known, most sources estimate around 400,000 people have died and another 2,500,000 have been displaced (1). The conflict started in 2003 and although it is not as severe as it has been in past years the issue still exists and the people of Darfur are still experiencing murder and suffering. The conflict in Darfur has been a topic of discussion for many nations, including the United States. The issue arises of whether or not larger nations, who have more power, should aid in the effort to stop the Darfur genocide. Some believe very strongly that the United States has an obligation to step up and help this country control a largely unethical situation. Others take the opposite argument and have reasons to believe the interests of the United States would be best served elsewhere. The situation is more complex than it initially seems and many factors must be analyzed when considering if the United States is obligated to intervene. At the same time, a conflict of this severity and size cannot be easily contained by a small and struggling nation and sometimes a bigger nation is needed to help with a conflict of this magnitude. Being a world power, the United States has the resour...
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
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]
Throughout history there has been an attempt to incorporate some level of humanitarian protection; with the origins dating back to the Hammurabic Code in the 18th century B.C.; where it was seen to include basic human rights even for slaves of war (ICRC, 2006: 6). In more recent times it started to be more widely accepted and is touched upon in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and also in the United State’s Lieber Code in 1863. Over the centuries these rules were also known as “customary international law”, which although were a set of ...
The R2P concept has been present in UN efforts towards better recognition of Human Rights, and lastly has been addressed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, which indicates that states commit to take adequate collective measures to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
Scholars of international relations and human rights argue from different perspectives on a vast range of policy issues. These encompass: global environmental concerns (including nuclear issues); the epidemiology of HIV/AIDs; legal and illegal migration, including refugee movements (Roberts, 2010; Haour-knipe, 2008); the gap between the North and the South in terms of access to and utilization of resources; democratization and the full range of human rights from civil and political rights to the right to development; reform of the United Nations and its agencies and the expansion of international law and the persecution of crimes against humanity, whether involving terrorism, religious fundamentalism, or international organized activities ranging from drug production and trafficking to money laundering, and the smuggling of all kinds of goods including weapons, diamonds and endangered species and individuals (Lawson, 2002: 6).
Even after decades of relatively established pattern for the relations between the states there is still an ambiguity on the issue of state sovereignty. To which extent its’ violation could be justified? In the study of International Relations there are two major perspectives on the legitimacy of such actions, they are: liberal and realist. Whilst former advocates for this measures when the state itself violates human rights of the citizens and extended intervention is required (Kegley, 259), latter claims that the state sovereignty is the central assumption of this theoretical framework (Kegley, 28) and the actions that might infringe it are not legitimate. 2011 military intervention in Libya, intended to cease Gaddafi’s regime (UNSC), can demonstrate both of these perspectives. Moreover, it particularly highlights the presence of peacemaking actors’ responsibility to protect the human rights of civilians. Nevertheless, both realist and liberal perspectives include the legitimacy of violation of the state sovereignty and at the same time reveal illegitimacy of this issue.
Smith M. J. 1999, Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of the Ethical Issues, in Patrick Hayden (ed.), The Philosophy of Human Rights, Paragon House, United States, pp. 478-500