More handpicked essays just for you.
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations
Characteristics of international law
There is no such thing as humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will outline the relevant international laws and how they are applicable.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), founded by the United Nations (UN), is embedded in the Charter of the United Nations, making all member nations ipso facto party to the Court’s statutes. The court, under Section 38 of the Statute of the ICJ, recognizes under international law: international conventions (recognized by the contesting states) and international custom (practice with acceptable precedent to be accepted as law).
International Convention
The UN Charter is the most important piece of law when it comes to international law. Almost all states, other than a few minor ones, are party to it. Article 103 of the Charter states that if there is a conflict between it and any other treaty or international agreement, the Charter prevails. The UN Charter is founded upon a principle of non-intervention and sovereignty. Article 2 (1) states that the UN is based upon the idea of sovereign equality am...
... middle of paper ...
...n International Relations: Challenges to Collective Security.
Chapter: The Role of Humanitarian Intervention in International Peace and Security:
Guarantee or Threat? International Press Organization. (2006)
United Nations. United Nations Charter. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter
United Nations. General Assembly – 25th Resolution. http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/348/90/IMG/NR034890.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations. General Assembly – Twenty-Ninth Session. http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations. General Assembly Resolution 42/22 (1987).
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r022.htm
Villiger, M. Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and
Practice of the Interrelation of Sources. Kluwer Law International. 2007
Next in 1899, 1907, 1954 the International Peace Convention (originally The Hague Convention) where held because, in the last wars multiple cultural, art, literature and artifacts pieces were destroyed. Also, the community notice the rise in technology of weapons. The rules of war from the two convention consist of National and Cultural Symbols, Chemical and Biological warfare, Wounded and Sick Soldiers, POW (Geneva III), Civilians and Occupation, and Cultural Property. All of those are rules of war and the are severe consequences if they are broken. The United Nations and International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) will take care of war crimes. Multiple other organizations were made by the U.N. to take care of certain wars for people such as, Nazi's and The Civil war in Yugoslavia. All countries are suppose to respect and follow the rules of war no matter the
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.
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.”
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The United Nations charter prescribes conditions to be met by states when it comes to military interventions. As stated in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.
...international humanitarian and human rights laws as well as international customary laws. There are convincing legal and moral arguments in favor of the use of military intervention as the last resort to protect populations from actual or imminent acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 is a good illustration of the importance of the R2P for the protection of populations from atrocities. The argument of opponents to the R2P is not convincing at all as it only covers one part of the three responsibilities of the R2P.
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.
According to Schaffer R, “International humanitarian law refers to those rules for how nations treat combatants, non-combatants, refugees, and other civilians during war or civil conflict”.
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
every nation in the world belongs to the United Nations. The United Nations has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.The United Nations is not a world government though,and it does not make laws.
Fifty-eight years after the signing of the Charter, the world has changed dramatically. Its universal character and comprehensiveness make the United Nations a unique and indispensable forum for governments to work together to address global issues. At the same time, there remains a large gap between aspiration and real accomplishment. There have been many successes and many failures. The United Nations is a bureaucracy that struggles – understandably – in its attempt to bring together 191 countries. It must come at no surprise, therefore, that a consensus cannot always be reached with so many different competing voices.
He states that we do not have the right to intervene, but the responsibility to protect” (Evans, 2008). Humanitarian intervention can be effective at times, but not always. Seybolt notes that one of the most dangerous aspects of humanitarian intervention is when international governments manipulate the numbers of deaths and refugees to suit their agenda. It is important to report the real amount of people saved because overestimating can be used as an excuse to show effectiveness through radical actions. Additionally, empirical evidence shows in past conflicts, lack of resources and slow response prevented saving more lives. To prevent the same failures from reoccurring, it is necessary to consider three factors “the needs of the population and aid organizations on the ground, the objectives of the intervention, and the strategy employed by the intervener” (Seybolt, 2007). All of these lessons learned helped to shape the current R2P policy. For example, humanitarian intervention terminology was removed because it was linked only to military intervention. As it was shown during Operation Restore Hope, intervention goes well beyond that. Unfortunately, the civil wars of Iraq and Syria are keeping ISIL strong and a negotiated agreement seems to be the only way to end them. The inefficacy to deal with the atrocities committed in Syria and Iraq clearly undermine the principles of the R2P policy because the international community has failed to protect the population from “genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing” (United Nations,
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]
Secondly, I will describe the core criticisms of the ability of the UN, and specifically the UN Security Council, to uphold international peace and security, including [what criticisms/arguments will be addressed]. Thirdly, I will address the main contributions of the UN to the maintenance of international peace and security, with particular emphasis on [what evidence/examples are used]. Subsequently, I will briefly discuss the possible reforms of the UN that have been proposed in order to improve the capabilities of the UN to respond to threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century. Finally, conclusions will be made that the support Hammarskjöld’s central claim that the UN, while not always effective, has a significant role in the maintenance of international peace and