Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

The end of the twentieth century brought with it a close to the era of mass human atrocities and a new understanding of how conflict worked. With the end of World War II and the solidification of state lines, no longer was conflict confined to border disputes. Increasingly so, conflicts occurred internally within the state’s own borders taking a greater toll on civilians and often escalating into violent wars. From Cambodia to Rwanda and Argentina to Bosnia, the second half of the twentieth century was riddled with genocide and the motto of “never again” continued to happen again. The twenty first century ushered in a new ideology to prevent and stop mass atrocities. With the realization that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention

It is therefore important to examine humanitarian intervention critically. This paper will explore the development of humanitarian intervention and the types of human rights violations that justify it. There will also be consideration given to the importance of state sovereignty and self-determination. This paper’s central argument will be that it is a valid assertion to describe humanitarian intervention as humanitarian imperialism. This argument will be supported by focusing upon principles such as the ‘doctrine to protect’ that legally permit infringement upon state sovereignty. Additionally, by focusing upon the contradictory use of military force to protect human rights and upon instances where there have been questionable intervention intentions, this paper will demonstrate why it this assertion is

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

Humanitarian intervention was put in place to help protect the people. humanitarian intervention occurs when a government, holding the powers of the state and representing the sovereign people, fails to protect the people. Ellery Stowell defines humanitarian intervention as “the reliance upon force for the justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment which is so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the sovereign is presumed to act with reason and justice” (1921, 53) (Benjamin, 2010).

The notion of intervention based on humanitarian ideals is not a novel concept in the realm of international relations. Even Hitler maintained that his 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia was conducted to protect the lives of those Czechoslovaks endangered by their government (Bellamy, 2009). However, the doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has attracted significant mention in political discourse and academia since the end of the cold war – not least with the surfacing of state-sponsored violence during the ‘Arab Spring’. This essay, with the help of relevant examples – such as Kosovo, Darfur, Libya and Syria – will aim to debate the notion that R2P will only be utilised when it is in the interests of major powers.

The R2P norm gives states the right to intervene in other states affairs, when there is serious breach of human rights or of the international humanitarian law in that state, that occurs in cases such as civil wars, state repression, insurgencies and state collapse (Evans & Shahnoun, 2001:11). Nevertheless, this is all easier said then done. The essay will begin by discussing internal concerns for humanitarian intervention by states in which the focus is on the risk of its own citizen’s lives by sending them to operate outside its borders. The essay will then follow with the moral claim to wage war in defense of human rights, thus focusing on how it affects the welfare of individuals (Heinze,

If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?

What is humanitarian intervention? Well there is no standardized definition that has been made official, but general consensus typically refers it, as using military force to intervene in another states affairs. A blogger from Ljubljana, Slovenia defines humanitarian intervention as; a state 's use of "military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." (Marjanovic). With that said, this paper will examine the article “Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World”, written by

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.

For humanitarian intervention, use of military force is a central feature, though it has fundamental values that support it such as justice, state sovereignty, world order and politics. Moreover, the principles that govern humanitarian intervention are just cause, proportionality, last resort, good over harm, right intention and reasonable prospect.

This topic is of significance because the humanitarian intervention in Timor-Leste is regarded as a prime example of how the use of force by the international community can lead to peace in a country. In the Timor-Leste case the theory of humanitarian intervention is put into practice. As the peacekeeping forces helped the self-determination efforts by the East-Timorese by rapidly helping to quell the violence, and control the civil unrest after the referendum. The humanitarian intervention in Timor-Leste under the aegis of Australia is a worthy case study of a multinational intervention. It is of great relevance for students of international relations to assess the reasons for the intervention and also it is important to explore its short and long term effects.

The state-centric construction of the international politics has forever made forceful interventions a contentious issue. In defining forceful intervention, Pattison states that “ the conceptual condition of a forceful intervention requires the intervention to occur against someone’s wishes, particularly those who are responsible for the humanitarian crisis for the sole purpose of preventing, reducing or halting actual or impending loss of life and human suffering. It is crucial to note that this ‘humanitarian crisis’ is politically induced and is not the result of any natural disasters and that the only viable option left to deal with this circumstance is a military intervention. Hence this paper holds that a humanitarian crisis under above mentioned conditions justifies a forceful intervention i.e. a military intervention by one state in another state. The nature of these humanitarian crises has been similar throughout the history, but justifications for the interventions that follow after these crises have indeed evolved.

However legitimacy is an important factor, mainly criticisms concern effectiveness of those humanitarian interventions. Two priciples of UN charter briefly are explained by author: 1)States’ sovereign rights as the organizing principle of the international system and 2) promoting respect for human rights and justice as a fundamental mission of the organization. Strict requirements about humanitarian interventions: States accept this interventian as legitimate and humanitarian. Thus, humanitarian intervention must bu multilateral, and must be organized under

Several problems surrounding the basis of humanitarian intervention and RtoP were highlighted with the US and NATO led intervention in Libya. The first major issue with humanitarian intervention is determining if it’s justified on the basis that the government is actually guilty of the crimes it’s alleged of committing. The premise that Gaddafi initiated the violence and attacked peaceful protesters analogous to those in Tunisia and Egypt was false. Furthermore, it was indeed the armed rebels that initiated the conflict and turned the uprisings to violence. It was then falsely reported that the Libyan government responded with lethal force, when in fact

There is hardly a universal definition of what is or should be humanitarian action, every humanitarian organization or actor uses its own. However, common core elements can be found in most definitions (Sphere Project 2011) and could be summarized as aid and action made to save lives, alleviate suffering as well as maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters (Macrae and Harmer 2004). What seems to differentiate humanitarian action from other forms of foreign assistance is its commitment to be guided by a set of principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence (UNOCHA 2012; Sphere Project 2011). The above-mentioned definition will be used to