Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Humanitarian intervention international relations
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations
International community Rwanda genocide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Humanitarian intervention international relations
Can Humanitarian Intervention Be Used to Alleviate Human Suffering and Rights Abuses? The clash between State sovereignty and the protection of human rights abuses through humanitarian intervention still remains prominent in international relations today. The international community faces a dilemma of allowing violations of human rights in defence of maintaining State sovereignty and intervention (Ludlow 1999). Humanitarian intervention can be understood as the use of coercive action or military force in another state without their permission aimed at “preventing or ending widespread and grave violation of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than their own citizens” (Kantareva 2011, p. 1). As Helen Burkhalter, human rights activist, There were many recent circumstances where human rights were violated that can be used to analyse the negative effects of non-intervention. The focus will be on the genocide and civil war in Rwanda, 1994, which killed 800,000 Rwandans (Pape, 2012), and is often considered one of the biggest failures of the international community. Although international law has codified the standard against genocide, rather than increasing UN involvement as the situation worsened, the United Nations (UN) reduced their United Nations Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) peacekeeping force (Ludlow, 1999). Ludlow (1999) writes that only when several warnings of a major humanitarian crisis growing out of proportion in Rwanda were made, did the UN sent UNAMIR II troops and the French-led Operation Turquoise to provide security in the region, notably without any other major powers providing their own forces. Ultimately, these actions came too late. The Commander of UNAMIR, Major-General Romeo Dallaire, argues that expansion of the peace-keeping troops could have “prevented the massacres in the southern and western parts of the country because they didn 't start until early May nearly a month after the war had started” (Ludlow, 1999, p. 17). Non-intervention or inaction in Rwanda was consequently more costly than the use of humanitarian intervention However, even if humanitarian intervention is a simple and a short term solution, it does not mean that the action, which can prevent the loss of life and gross violations of human rights in the case of Rwanda, should not be undertaken. Rather it suggests that the international community should also commit time and resources to economic and social development programs (Ludlow, 1999). Similarly the R2P compliments humanitarian intervention with assistance for long term peace and promotion of development and effective governance (Lu
As the news reported that Islamic State committed genocide against Christians and other minorities had suffered serious defeats from recent battles against the allied forces, the images of piles of dead bodies shown to the world in Rwanda about a couple decades ago emerge once again and triggers an interesting puzzle: why did the Rwandan Genocide happen in one of the smallest nations in the African Continent? The documentary film, Rwanda-Do Scars Ever Fade?, upon which this film analysis is based provides an answer to the puzzle.
“The Rwandan Genocide represents one of the worst human security failures, and the consequences still reverberate through the Great Lakes region of Africa nearly ten years later”, writes the Commission on Human Security in 2003. “Therefore, realizing human rights lies at the core of protecting and empowering people” (Bodelier, 2011). Canada's lack of response to the Rwandan Genocide was unfortunate, and it allowed for questioning of Canada's continued strength in peacekeeping operations, something Canada had been instrumental in creating merely 40 years prior. It is necessary to examine Canada's role within the international community's failure, to understand what external factors can still influence Canada's foreign policy, and to therefore
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.
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.”
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.
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...
Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once said, "We were not realizing that with just a machete, you can do a genocide." To be candid, nobody anticipated the Rwandan Genocide that occurred in 1994. The genocide in Rwanda was an infamous blood-red blur in modern history where almost a million innocent people were murdered in cold blood. Members of the Tutsi tribe were systematically hacked or beaten to death by members of the Interahamwe, a militia made up of Hutu tribe members. In just 100 days, from April 6, 1994 to mid-July, 20% of Rwanda's population was killed; about 10,000 people a day. Bodies literally were strewn over city streets. Genocide obviously violates almost all articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; however, the article I find most important is Article 3 - the right to life, liberty, and personal security. In just 100 days, one million people were denied the most basic privilege granted to every human – the right to live, simply because they were born to the wrong tribe.
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.
In this assignment, it is intended to define and discuss the notion of Humanitarianism, explain its principles and investigate its boundaries. I would try to explain how the humanitarian act could be identified among other actors in a crisis settings, what are the boundaries of humanitarian act and how these boundaries are being challenged. First it will be fruitful to give an explanation of what is called as Humanitarianism, secondly give a brief overview of its principles and then find out the boundaries of the humanitarian act and its challenges.
Over the period of around 100 days, with the death toll ranging somewhere between 800,000 to 1,100,000 the Rwandan genocide has become infamous for the high numbers of dead in such a short amount of time, and for the inadequate response of the UN an...
UN peacekeepers in Rwanda sent warning of an “Anti-Tutsi extermination” plot, and there were stories in Washington Post & New York Times but President Clinton specifically avoided calling the killings a genocide to avoid U.S involvement. The U.S would have no participation in stopping the Rwandan Genocide.A UN peacekeeping operation was sent to Rwanda in April but they failed to be an benefit and they weren't very well equipped. Quickly medical supplies ran out with no money to restock and other supplies could rarely be
Baldauf, S. (2009). Why the US didn't intervene in the Rwandan genocide. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0407/p06s14-woaf.html [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
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]