More handpicked essays just for you.
Example of humanitarian intervention
The history of humanitarian intervention
Example of humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Example of humanitarian intervention
The first efforts of humanitarian intervention took place in 1946 in the Balkans in the form of United Nations (UN) Peacekeeping operations and were considered an essential means of resolving conflicts internally and between borders. However, they never intended to provide a solution to a conflict and that is where humanitarian intervention comes in. Nevertheless one of the most critical moral limitations an intervening country upholds is the responsibility for the lives of its people (Parkeh, 1997:58). Even the population of a state has supported the state’s engagement in humanitarian intervention in which it acts outside its territorial borders, the state will remain obligated to placate its domestic population so that they will continue …show more content…
The moral reasoning behind this is simple, as the intervening state’s sole responsibility is to ensure that its soldiers and citizens suffer the least. Furthermore, since states lack the authority to force the deployment of its troops for humanitarian intervention, it seeks public support to legitimize the action, however if there is a significant loss in lives, the public will easily oppose the action. The above explanation of a states moral obligation to protect its soldiers can be exemplified through the retreat of troops from the United Nation Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) from the Golan Heights (UNDOF articles, 2013). The spillover from the Syrian crisis into UNDOF’s area of operations in Syria has become a key issue for UNDOF and has significantly interfered with the safety of UNDOF personnel. Consequently, in early 2012 and mid 2013 the Croatian, Japanese and Austrian governments had decided to withdraw all their troops from the UNDOF peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights as their safety was at risk (Security Council report,
Over 500,000 troops were in the Gulf at the beginning of Desert Storm.(Persian Gulf War Britannica) In 1990 USA made their way into Kuwait to defend them from Iraq.(Persian Gulf War Britannica) The Iraqis were very poor from the war they had just suffered and they needed money. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) So they decide to invade Kuwait for their oil supply so the Iraqis could sell oil to make money. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) What they didn’t know was the U.S. were buying the oil from Kuwait and the U.S. wanted Kuwait to have oil. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) So the U.S. defended Kuwait and attacked the Iraqis. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) They did this by sending over 100,000 troops
In the case of Syria, his definition urges the bystander to take initiative. As elucidated in the text, King’s definition of morality causes Americans to experience vicariously the lives of marginalized groups. Too often, America possesses the tools to confront injustice, but instead, they stand by futilely. This problem is evident today and even more highlighted by the United States’ eleventh hour involvement in World War II. King summarizes this point, stating, “Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection” (citation). Moreover, in the case of the Syrian Civil War, if an individual American cannot bear the complete moral burden, he or she should advocate that the United States government should take action. The moral definition refers to King’s implicit proposal that the American government should bear the moral onus of the world since “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (citation). The idea that immorality is an infection serves as a prominent theme throughout King’s text, and he proposes that its eradication will only transpire when everyone dons the responsibility of purging immorality and
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
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.
The biggest war the world has ever seen was World War II. What was one factor that led to such a quick escalation? Genocide. Over 45 million people were murdered during this tragic time. The question is: was it the allies responsibility to intervene? The answer: No. The Global Community has no responsibility to intervene in states committing genocide.
American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop it,” even if a vital national interest is not at stake.² The just war theory and Plato’s Republic can both be used to justify the humanitarian intervention doctrine.
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 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...
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 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.
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
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. 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 defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
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
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