The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

Other examples of critics are the West Balkan or Iraq war where intervention was conducted without the UN Security Council authorisation. There are also criticisms that, far from being unnecessarily intrusive, interventions in conflict, notably peacekeeping, can be ineffective, particularly if ill-conceived and ill-timed. As Larry Hollingworth has said, within the UN peacekeeping operations there are United Nations forces operating around the world today that don’t have bite. He refers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, and Darfur and he wonders why the forces that we are deploying there cannot stop the rape, the violence, the mayhem, the murder. We should have learnt that you can use force and if you use force properly and at the

Military action will unavoidably result in woman and children casualties, private property damage and pollution. Internally Displaced Person (IDP) will be also an issue to deal with as will also the people fleeing the country in to neighbouring countries. Humanitarian Intervention could also send a wrong signal to the oppressed that instead of fighting for their own rights, they should campaign for an intervention by a third party. When an intervening party decides to take action, as a consequence the party must be able to claim triumph in order to maintain credibility internationally and internally. Therefore calling off military action is an impossibility, once intervention has commenced there is no incentive for the side finding itself under attack to improve its behaviour. Once a third party begins with its military action, it becomes important for it to boost its public support for it and demonstrate its necessity. Furthermore the intervening power will not necessarily hesitate to commit criminal acts of its own if it judges they will make its aim of military victory more