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 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...
... middle of paper ...
... another state with the mindset of hopefully improving the overall atmosphere. Although intervention will always be in question, whether or not intervention is just an excuse to invade, with the creation of this resolution and the topic in discussion, most likely intervention will result it positive outcomes. One of the biggest contribution to successful interventions is the intention the state has going in. If the intention is to hopefully resolve conflicts and to intervene peacefully, meaning an unlikely possibility of military enforcement, intervention will be successful.
Works Cited
Stewart, Rory, and Gerald Knaus. Can Intervention Work? New York: W. W. Norton &, 2011. Print.
The United Nations. Resolution 36/103 of the UN General Assembly (1981). N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Griffin, David R. "Global Research." Global Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Smetana, L. (2010). A view from the middle tier: Looking closely at Tier II intervention. The California Reader, 43(4), 15-24.
The International Community has a Right to Intervene in Sovereign States in order to end Serious Human Rights Abuses? Discuss.
The history of the US’s relationship with the UN is complex, seeming to vacillate between warm cooperation and abject disdain as the national interests of the US and the rest of the world, and the short- and long-term interests of the US itself, align or oppose each other. The UN was originally the vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt and the product of US State Department planning and diplomacy. It was designed to forward the national interests of its strongest members, the P-5, to reflect and channel the geopolitical power structure rather than twist it into an unnatural and unsustainable hierarchy of weak nations trying to dominate strong. Because the Charter is based in a realist view of the world, during the Cold War, when the national interests of the two world powers diverged, the UN was paralyzed to deal with any of the world’s conflicts. When the Cold War ended it gave rise to the first war that should have been authorized by the Security Council—the Persian Gulf War from later 1990 to early 1991. Many hoped for a “new world order” after the success of the Gulf War, but the interests of the US and the rest of the world, primarily the rest of the members of the Security Council, soon divided again. Today, the world is still struggling to cope with the blow dealt to the UN by the US’s use of force in Iraq, including the US, which has not even begun to feel the long-term negative effects of its unilateralism. However, the war in Iraq could have been less detrimental to the UN and the US in particular, and by extension to the rest of the world, if the US had argued that it was acting to uphold resolution 1441 under the authorization of the Security Cou...
Humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial topics in world politics today. This is due to the ethical dilemma at the core of humanitarian intervention – that it violates a state’s sovereignty in the name of upholding human rights and human security (Lang: 2002). Despite it being heavily contested, humanitarian intervention is commonly employed by international organisations today as a way to address human rights violations committed within a state’s domestic politics. Therefore, humanitarian intervention is often described as a contemporary form within the just war tradition. However, a central question is whether intervention can be legitimate and if so, under what circumstances. In this essay I will critically interpret the notion of humanitarian intervention as an example of just war theory. I will open the concept to challenge by looking at what motives drive humanitarian intervention and the consequences they produce for the states, which are subjected to intervention. Then, I will look at the responsibility to protect (2001) from its origins in the United Nations peacekeeping doctrines (Lang: 2010). Observing this, I will look at how the concept of humanitarian intervention is inseparable form the context of politics and history, and particularly, the concept of power. This necessarily calls for a critical examination of humanitarian intervention, which is often considered a modern form of colonialism (what is colonialism?). In conclusion, I suggest that humanitarian intervention can be considered an example of just war theory, but it is debatable whether or not the ethical foundations of humanitarian intervention can be realised in the context of a power-motivated international world system.
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.
High state interests are the key reason governments prevent large–scale human rights abuse, without clear direct costs nations aren’t obligated to engage in other countries’ conflicts. The elements of high state interest include the value of engaging in the conflict being significantly higher than the cost, there will is a positive voter approval and support from other nations, and the conflict can potentially affect that nation in the future. The value of participating in conflict can be high and use a lot of resources. This is why nations tend to focus on their international affairs. Preventing genocides produces positive audience approval. Nations prefer domestic and international support, which influences the state’s participation in
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
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
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
However, as the nature of conflict changes and the international system edges towards a global society based on interdependence, some argue that this traditional notion must be updated. Tony Blair, for example, called for sovereignty to be “reconceptualised” (Bellamy, 2009; p.25). This is most likely due to the rise of humanitarian crises and the UN’s growing role in intervention. With global media coverage, it is harder for governments to ignore the will of the people, and public pressure to intervene in said crises. Therefore, humanitarian intervention is being viewed more as a responsibility than an option. The current system cannot effectively deal with this, as the debates over the violation of traditional sovereignty slow the process. As Lu says (2006; p. 81) “Critical opportunities to engage in preventive and non military actions, before a crisis explodes or escalates to the level of mass atrocity, are missed when the concepts of intervention and the use of force are conflated”. The problem of sovereignty blocks the UN from completing its mandate of “maintaining international peace and security”. Moreover, Kofi Annan points out that state sovereignty must not replace human rights: “the Charter protects the sovereignty of peoples… Sovereignty implies responsibility, not just power.” (Bellamy 2009; p. 28) Again we are reminded that governments should be
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.