Introduction Today’s world is frequently shattered by terrorist attacks and outbreaks of fatal wars. After the Holocaust the international community established laws “prohibiting genocide, forbidding the mistreatment of civilians and recognizing basic human rights” (Bellamy & Wheeler, 2008, p.1), which in turn led to a dilemma as the Westphalian-principle of state-sovereignty and non-intervention was suddenly at stake. When examining humanitarian intervention, a distinction between purely humanitarian interventions and humanitarian ‘military’ intervention has to be done. Purely humanitarian interventions relate to e.g. food aid delivery and refugees camps (Hoffmann in Chatterjee, 2003). A humanitarian military intervention can be defined …show more content…
Recently humanitarian interventions, such as in Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo, were led by states out of self-interest. Thus, the question arises if humanitarian intervention is used selectively as a cover for state-interest. This paper describes state-interest as a composition of interests, for instance economic interests, “strategic interests and the personal political interests of the political decision makers” (Krieg, 2013, p. 40). Some critics claim that states intervene selectively if they have in advantage in prospect. This paper argues that a humanitarian intervention is never purely humanitarian but rather based on state-interest than on the altruistic principles as theory …show more content…
Already in the mid-1970s, Gadhafi possessed nuclear weapons and used them against Chad in the late 1980s (Kaplan, 2007). After Gadhafi’s announcement that Libya would abandon its weapons of mass destruction in 2003, he still failed to completely give up chemical weapons. It is widely known that Gadhafi was in general not a rational actor, which made his possession of chemical weapons a serious threat. Consequently NATO member states had great security concerns, which could be seen as the major driving force to initiate the intervention. These concerns obviously prevail over the humanitarian concerns. Obama already implied this in a speech in March 2011, defending the intervention in Libya with the words: “There will be times (…) when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interest and values are. (…) In such cases, we should not be afraid to act”. Again realism appears to explain NATO’s motivations in Libya, because specifically European states in proximity to Libya had vital national interests at stake in the conflict (Kazianis,
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.”
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.
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
A state doesn’t wage war for humanitarian reasons; the single purpose of any war is to placate the hysterical appetite for new income and to appease supporters of the state. Though, world powers continue to weep over humanitarian crises They can’t seem to figure out why so many people are dying of hunger, diseases etc. in these war ravaged countries. Actually, its not that they can’t figure it out, its more that in dealing with the root of the problem, they would indirectly be taking responsibility for the deaths involved, the wealth gap and the fact that they are being bought off while simultaneously cutting into their own green filled pockets.
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...
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.
The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on using the genocide label to create domestic constituencies especially in the Rwandan case.
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
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
When is Military Intervention Justifiable? War and political conflicts are prevalent in majority of this world, but whether humanitarian and military intervention is necessary and just is a pressing, debatable topic. This is a topic which causes a political divide within the people of a nation. Here, in the United States, there are incidents of military intervention from the U.S. military dating back to the 1990s that are still being debated today. Although the costs of war are tremendous, there are times when military intervention is not only justifiable but necessary.
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the principle that the international community has a right, or duty, to intervene in states that have suffered from large-scale loss of life, or genocide, either due to deliberate action by the state’s government or due to a collapse of government (The Globalization of World Politics, 2013, p. 480). According to Allen Buchanan of University of Arizona, humanitarian intervention can often be defined as infringement on a state’s sovereignty by external forces in order to prevent human rights violations (The Problem of Internal Legitimacy, A. Buchanan, 2002, p.71). It is also carefully noted that the term “infringement” does not always imply an unjust, and the notion of infringement remains neutral to
2003, for the first time in its history, NATO took up peacekeeping activities outside of Europe by deploying troops in Afghanistan. "The North Atlantic treaty is a short document which expresses the practical resolutions and the idealism of the nations." (Ismay 12)
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
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: [Accessed 2 March 2011]