Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Example of humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations
Critically evaluate the work of the UN
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Example of humanitarian intervention
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.
The United Nations was created in the aftermath
…show more content…
Once the United States could not find any WMDs, they attempted to justify their invasion as a humanitarian endeavor. This post-hoc justification called into question whether the Iraq War was actually a humanitarian intervention. The 2003 war represents one of the first times a group of intervening states have justified their actions citing the humanitarian outcomes that came about from non-humanitarian concerns. A major concern with the Iraq War was that the United Nation’s Security Council did not authorize the intervention, calling to question the legality of the invasion. In a pre-emptive strike the United States was able to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime but may have caused more problems as a power vacuum formed in the absence of the Iraqi leader. This unilateral action by the United States raises questions on the viability on transnational institutions, like the United Nations. If they can not stop a nation from acting against there rules what is the point of having …show more content…
In this case, humanitarian intervention could be considered a secondary motive, to finding weapons of mass destruction. Once the United States could not find any they then changed the rhetoric to show a more humanitarian motive. There was no substantiated proof that the regime was committing exceptional genocide. The scope of Iraqi government killings did not meet the threshold of extreme human suffering by March of 2003. It is important that the intervention does cause more harm than it sought to stop. The coalition of forces that invaded Iraq did meet the criteria of force as a last resort because before 2003, there were many Security Council Resolutions, weapons inspectors, and displays of military threats by the United States, in an effort to get Saddam Hussein to cease human rights violations. There was a reasonable attempt to use non military force in order to stop the violation occurring in Iraq. Out of the first three criteria, the Iraq War only meets one of the
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
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.
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But...
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.
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 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 issue of non-intervention was discussed during the Convention of the Rights and Duties of States. The convention made all states juridically equal and that no state had any right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another state .Secretary Hull also made the condition that the renunciation of intervention was qualified by the “law of nations as generally recognized” . This would suggest that only countries that were legitimately recognized by the U.S....
... hand, the principle is still very useful and is referred to in global political and social debate. It is noted that Richard Falk, critic of western wars argues that the just war theory ‘is a vital source of modern international law governing the use of force and it focuses attention on the causes, means and ends of war’ (Shaw, 2005, p.133). It can be acknowledged, that the morality of war still remains urgently central to political argument around the world. In recent years, the Just war theory has seen to respond to the main challenges surrounding the establishment of war in Iraq in 2003. It can be assessed the war in Iraq has distorted into a stimulating theory positioning the existence of Weapons of mass destruction.Therefore, this dissertation will elaborate on the theories that are challenged by Iraq war in relation to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
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.
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
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
The principle of last resort is a proponent of international law, article 2(4) of the UN charter states, ‘the prohibition of the use of force’, (Gray, 2004, p.5). Force should be limited as last resort; therefore, all peaceful options should be used before the use of force. In addition, Michael Walzer agrees with international law. He conveys that, ‘one always wants to see diplomacy tried before the resort to war’. War under the just war principle can be acceptable under the principle of ‘last resort’ (Walzer, 2006, p.84).Walzer conveys that there are always peaceful alternatives available for the prevention of warfare. It is evident by the Security Council; a nation has the right to ‘defend itself, by a discriminate and proportionate use of force as last resort’ (Rychlak, 2004, p.10). The principle of self-defence has been used in modern diplomacy to declare wars. After the 9/11 attack, there was a growing conspiracy upon Iraq holding WMD. Bush feared that Iraq could be a major threat to the US, thus put forward a case for imminent intervention. Due to Iraq’s previous history of attaining WMD during the Gulf war, there were questions upon whether Iraq is a grave threat to global economy. It is noted that the UN set out resolutions to provide peaceful conditions that Iraq had to comply with. However, Iraq failed to comply with resolution 678 and 687, due to the recent knowledge of attainment of WMD. It is argued by Peaceright activist Rabinder (2002) Singh QC and Janet Kentridge (2002) that ‘Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 29 UN security Council resolutions would not justify the use of force’ (Shiner.P, AND Williams. A, 2008, p.21). They argued that US is using old resolution to pursue...
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