More handpicked essays just for you.
Example of humanitarian intervention
The history of humanitarian intervention
Example of humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Example of humanitarian intervention
Many countries are using humanitarian intervention as a way to invade other countries. This intervention is when countries invade other countries where they believe human rights are being violated. Humanitarian intervention seem like a great reason to justify an invading countries actions, but the only problem is that it is just a cover up. Countries are using this as an excuse to take over different lands and try to gain control. According to the article Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Analysis, “Over the last forty years, a number of governments have justified unilateral military action with reference to the “customary law” of military humanitarian intervention in one form or another, and without exception, the international community
The peacekeeping law is “the law that keeps the community from turning into the howling chaos the Takers imagine it to be” (118). This law promotes and protects life for all living things to grow and prosper in a community and is extremely important to a community 's stability. One branch of the family of Homo sapiens sapiens, specifically the Takers, believe that they are exempt from this law and are purposely breaking it which is dangerous to species within the community and the survival of them. Man’s excuse for breaking this law is that there is fundamentally something wrong with people and human nature itself.
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
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.
In some cases this intervention in other countries could cause the situation to become far worse. In Darfur two rebel movements took up arms against the Sudanese government over a lack of protection from invading nomads and the marginalization of the area. “Saddam responded to the domestic uprisings with extreme brutality, killing perhaps 20,000 Kurds and 30,000-60,000 Shiites, many of them civilians” (Valentino). An intervention of Saddam’s brutality was attempted and after 100 hours the US withdrew forces. The intervention was entirely unsuccessful, even with foreign aid. And in retribution Saddam brutally killed tens of thousands of people, many of which were
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.”
“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, independent, and indivisible.” (Webster Online Dictionary) These rights are taken away during genocide. Throughout history genocides have taken place time and time again from the Armenian genocide of 1915, to the Darfur genocide starting in 2003, and is still in progress today. Genocide is a barbaric practice that dehumanizes people and takes away their basic human rights ; American Foreign policy should be to intervene in foreign affairs when human rights violations are evident.
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.
We feel that if we know what is going on and it is not directly affecting us then we will tell them to stop what they are doing and give them a “false” threat to hopefully scare them into stopping whatever they are doing. We also feel that if we are not being directly attacked and we know what is going on we will wait for surrounding UN countries to take action before sending our troops into something we are not excited about getting into. If the UN troops fail, we will jump in and try our best to stop whatever is going on. However, if they succeed then we will not intervene with the process of any clean up of the genocide or after activities.
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
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
I am not in agreement with the complier's opinion on the Story of Ying-ying when stating "Both lovers are acting roles that never quite fit them". I do see both error and fault within the role played by Chang. However, I think that Ying-ying's role suited her perfectly in all aspects. Ying-ying was a virtuous and beautiful young women that derived from a prominent lineage. Although, Chang was a easy route to a socially acceptable marriage, Ying-ying chose to express her free will and disapproval of Chang the very first time they met. Ying-ying was rightfully skeptical and critical in response to Chang's poem because she was unsure of his intentions. She did not want to feel as if her love was a payment of debt, in exchange of him saving her family from rioting soldiers. Ying-ying was only seventeen, which means she was more than likely inexperienced with men. Her immaturity
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...
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
International law has been regarded throughout history as the main system of rules regulating players of the international community, it applies to all states and imposes specific obligations and rights on nations, just as domestic law imposes them on individuals. Its purpose is similar to that of domestic law that is to eliminate chaos in the International community and set standards of behavior which states must follow in their dealings with each other.