Introduction:
The paradigm of human security emerged after that cold-war era when it was thought that humans should be given more importance than the state and hence the security of the former would be a direct consequence of the later. It focuses to support individuals by means of a people-centered approach for overcoming disparities that disturb human safety.
Humanitarian intervention motivated by human security is an important aspect for any developed country to ponder upon, if it is devising its international policy. In this paper the author will try to look at the pros and cons of such an intervention.
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.
Hypothesis:
Human Security is at stake due to Humanitarian Intervention
Human Security Approach:
Individuals would not be defenseless if their necessities and needs are identified by their governments, they may not feel threat to their livesor to their survival. In an ideal world the governments would and should fulfill the requirements of its individuals so that the scope of threat and insecurity does not exist.
Humanitarian intervention:
Humanitarian intervention is termed as the use of military power to intervene on another state without the endorsement of its rulers for the sake of safeguard and defense for civili...
... middle of paper ...
...are committed by the regime in opponents to its civiliansthis situation where the internal violence of regimes cannot handle all the severe condition then the mandatory power like United Nations security Council may give permission of military interventions to intervene on those areas where the situation needs to be intervened or where the treat of aggression, violence appear and danger to international peace and stability. Security Council can only allow the use of force or military intervention for the goals of peace and stability to stop violence. Humanitarian intervention is the biggest threat to human security. There are a huge amount of mass atrocities occurred due to humanitarian intervention. There are a lot of human rights violations like women rights violation, dozens of causalities as well as destruction of infrastructure occurred by these interventions.
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.
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...
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
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
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.
...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.
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
Humanitarian intervention is often described as “using of military force in others states to halt human rights abuses or otherwise promote human rights”. This definition of human rights fails to consider the other aspects of intervention such as non-violent form of aid, such as medical supplies or food. While there are less aggressive ways that nations can intervene the issues of humanitarian intervention arise from military action. The main goal of intervention is to alleviate the suffering of the people who are suffering from abuse. A common concern with humanitarian intervention is when is it justified for other nations to ignore sovereignty and become involved in a countries domestic matters.
76-122). Fixdal, M., & Smith, D. (1998) Humanitarian intervention and war Mershon International Studies Review, 42, 283-312. Fussell, (1989) Wartime, chapter 18 (pp. 267-298. Gartner, Scott.
The RP2 is based on promoting interconnectedness between nations that can no longer perform what actions that state desires, which in a way it destroys the idea of “state sovereignty” which will be the basis for change if executed right. The Responsibility to Protect purposes to reframe “the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states” (Responsibility to protect, 2001) Allowing sovereign states to collectively intervene without another states approval simplifies interventions, because there is no need for approval or debate amongst the security council. RP2 is a broader liberalist vision of human protection and assigned responsibilities. It also reframes the notion of state sovereignty because instead of international communities sitting idly aside while genocides and civil wars occur, they are forced to act if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfil the basic fundamental rights of their citizens.
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
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
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-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
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
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_05/articles/883.html> [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19