More handpicked essays just for you.
International relations humanitarian intervention
Should humanitarian intervention be allowed essay
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.
The International Community has a Right to Intervene in Sovereign States in order to end Serious Human Rights Abuses? Discuss.
Humanitarian intervention is definitely one of the most controversial subjects of the recent decades- among states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia. The centre of the debate is the clash of traditional principles of state sovereignty and new adopted norms on use of force for humanitarian purposes. Despite the political controversies between the countries, humanitarian intervention is now an international norm which calls for action anytime there are serious mass life threatening occurrences in any country.
In 2001, ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) - supported by the Canadian Government - introduced a report which would advance Humanitarian Intervention concept to a "Responsibility to Protect" (or “R2P). ICISS Report referred to the "right of humanitarian intervention" as a "coercive - and in particular military - action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state" (ICISS, 2001, p. vii).
Lack of political will, disagreement in the international community, or over-rationality about the costs of intervention has caused terrible atrocities - which have taken forms of genocide or ethnic cleansing - that have cost lives of millions (Power, 2011; J. Bajorja & R. McMahon, 2013). Humanitarian Intervention's new doctrine "Responsibility to Protect" is embraced by United Nations as a necessary means to prevent and punish atrocities. Yet, there are state actors as China and Russia which challenge its implementation.
I argue that it is very important to save Humanitarian Inter...
... middle of paper ...
...reviews .
Power, S. (2011). Bystanders to Genocide. The Atlantic Monthly , 84-108.
Roth, K. (2004). War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. Human Rights Watch .
S. N. Macfarlane, C. J Thielking & T. G Weiss. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect: Is anyone interested in human intervention? Third World Quarterly , 977-992.
Secretary-General, U. (2002, February 15). Secretary-General Addresses International Peace Academy Seminar on The Responsability to Protect. UN document SG/SM/8125 .
Selfa, L. (2002). A new colonial "age of empire"? International Socialist Review .
Traub, J. (2012, February 18). The End of American Intervention . New York Times .
(1648). Treaty of Westphalia. International Relations and Security Network.
United Nations Secretary-General. (1999). Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organisation, A/54/1. United Nations.
Scheffer, David J. "Responding To Genocide And Crimes Against Humanity." U.S. Department Of State Dispatch 9.4 (1998): 20. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
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 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.
...2009): 8-9. United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. .
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.
Since its adoption by world leaders at the World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (herein R2P) has been hailed as a major achievement in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing that would be committed by rulers. However, some see the R2P as not an effective human rights instrument for civilians’ protection, as it appears to be another tool for imperialism. My position in this essay is that I believe the R2P doctrine is a considerable achievement in world politics as it signals to potential perpetrators of mass atrocities that the world will no longer stand by, but will use force when necessary to protect innocent civilians. My position is articulated as follows. First, I will present the content/principles of the R2P doctrine.
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
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
Even after decades of relatively established pattern for the relations between the states there is still an ambiguity on the issue of state sovereignty. To which extent its’ violation could be justified? In the study of International Relations there are two major perspectives on the legitimacy of such actions, they are: liberal and realist. Whilst former advocates for this measures when the state itself violates human rights of the citizens and extended intervention is required (Kegley, 259), latter claims that the state sovereignty is the central assumption of this theoretical framework (Kegley, 28) and the actions that might infringe it are not legitimate. 2011 military intervention in Libya, intended to cease Gaddafi’s regime (UNSC), can demonstrate both of these perspectives. Moreover, it particularly highlights the presence of peacemaking actors’ responsibility to protect the human rights of civilians. Nevertheless, both realist and liberal perspectives include the legitimacy of violation of the state sovereignty and at the same time reveal illegitimacy of this issue.
Smith M. J. 1999, Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of the Ethical Issues, in Patrick Hayden (ed.), The Philosophy of Human Rights, Paragon House, United States, pp. 478-500
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
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines IHL as “a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict.” It can be seen as protection for those who no longer wish to continue hostilities during armed conflict and provides restrictions on warfare that could be used (ICRC, 2004: 1). International law governs the relationship between States by using conventions or treaties that are usually considered to be legally binding; this also includes IHL. However, the IHL does not provide States the authority to use actually force (ICRC, 2004: 1). To analyse IHL further, a historical point will need to be examined.
The UN has made strides toward and continues to fight for world peace, but this however is not the only function of the agency. Environmental protection, Human rights, health and medical research, alleviation of poverty and economic development, emergency and disaster relief, and labor and workers' rights are just a sample of what the UN continues to battle as the year 2000 approaches.