The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

In this essay I will be arguing that although non-intervention is understood as a norm in the field of international law, there are circumstances when humanitarian intervention is necessary in order to respond to serious abuse- such as when a state commits crimes or inflicts abuse upon their own citizens. Through explanation and analysis of the policies and processes of the United Nations, I will then be presenting arguments, involving the topics of human rights and moral duties, as to why humanitarian intervention is not only an effective solution, but also necessary at times. I will also examine a few of the common arguments against humanitarian intervention and go on to explain why they are invalid and flawed in nature. From there, I will

This implied that states had no higher authority above themselves- meaning that they were allowed to be in control and operate with no direction from other states. From the perspective of the United Nations, intervention was seen as an intrusion upon a state’s sovereignty- given that it wasn’t consensual, and that the goal was to change the functioning and policies of the government- in attempt to achieve effects that they, as their own state, found to be satisfying. This balance shifted in the 1990s- this was the period of time when it became more normal for states to forcibly protect citizens of another state when there was a need to do so- such as in the case of a genocide. In 2011, the United Nations Security Council authorized intervention against sovereign states, in response to the crisis in Libya. However, the new policy still posed worries for some states of the Global South- they saw humanitarian intervention as interference forced upon the weaker states by the stronger ones. ********Add something here********[[[[[[I will be arguing that despite some of the concerns that have been mentioned, humanitarian intervention is not only an effective solution for resolving issues within sovereign states, but it is also necessary at

When there is no proper method for determining when humanitarian intervention is acceptable, states may act on national self-interest in the name of “humanitarian intervention.” This occurred when Hitler argued that an invasion into Czechoslovakia was necessary, in order to protect the liberty of Czechoslovakia’s German population. Obviously, those were not his true intentions. In this case, humanitarian intervention justified the concept of powerful states interfering in to the weaker ones. Critics argue that humanitarian intervention is simply a label that justifies states using force against one another when it is not necessary. However, it is important to consider the cases in which humanitarian intervention is used properly. There was an extreme refugee crisis in Northern Iraq in April 1991, due to oppression of the Kurds caused by Saddam Hussein. The military forces of several states joined together and intervened in order to create safe, protected areas for the Kurdish people. In 1992, the compassion from US citizens influenced the US military to intervene in Solamia when it was needed. This is evidence that although there are cases in which humanitarian intervention is not used in an appropriate manner, when used effectively it can also be a valid