Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

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 a 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 one is 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.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

Declaring war without sufficient reason is wrong. These reasons include self-defense against an act of aggression, and defense of others against an aggressor nation. In humanitarian intervention, you would be defending another people from an aggressor nation, making it a justifiable act.

Military intervention is defined as the deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy. For the most part, military intervention is focused on upholding basic human rights throughout the world but, the idea of the military intervention itself is a controversy, there is a constant debate on whether it is good or bad. Many people believe that military intervention does more harm than it does good to all the countries involved and is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, arguing that the government is in place to protect its citizens from violation of their rights and from domestic violence. Which being said is to be upheld by the police force and the military is there to protect American citizens from foreign

The Iraq War was not a humanitarian intervention, but a humanitarian war. Humanitarian invention mainly consists of threats, and the United States made the decision to physically intervene in Iraq’s affairs. The United States main reason to go to war with Iraq was not motivated by humanitarian needs. Bush and his administration made the decision to declare war on Iraq for the sole purpose of preventing the weapons

Section one deals with the debates that surround the issues of humanitarian intervention and just war theory on the basis of international scale. One article by Holzgrefe is completely focused on the debate, stating the many ethical theories of many different theorists: from "utilitarianism; natural law; social contractrianism; communitarianism; and legal postivism" (7). Holzgrefe goes on to define what each ethical theorist is and their understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention. However, there is the idea of when it is right to intervene and when intervention is unfavorable. The most interesting part was the third section of the article.

Humanitarian intervention was by no means a new topic—its rhetoric has been around since the mid 1800s. However, in trying to codify the “right to intervene” there was a controversial

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

In the spring and summer of 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. After seeing the tragedies that took place in Nazi Germany, one would expect the international community to respond quickly and effectively in the case of the Rwandan genocide. However, the killings were largely pushed aside or ignored by the rest of the world, begging the question of when states have the right or duty to betray another state’s sovereignty. There are different methods of intervening to protect human rights, but they are much debated and there have been many times that intervention has made a situation worse. However, there is a moral obligation that we all have to protect others when we can, whether they are part of our nation or not. If human rights are being abused in a state, other states have the duty to take multilateral actions to stop killings and provide aid.

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Through observation of conflicts in the Middle East during recent times, the spread and viciousness of ISIS/ISIL is alarming. With widespread atrocities committed and championed by the faction, it is obvious that action must be taken in some form. With over 62 countries taking part in air strikes and supplying other military aid, including the United States, France and Canada, action is already underway. Yet, the question of legality still remains. While every participating country has found a way to legitimize its campaign, there are two sides to every legal battle. What follows is an in-depth look into both arguments, analyzing key points both for and against intervention in the Middle East in regards to ISIS/ISIL. These points include, but are not limited to, United Nation Charters, collective and individual self-defense, and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

When a country fails to provide the basic needs of survival for its people, the international community is faced with the issue of intervention. However, there exists no clearly defined doctrine to guide governments or humanitarian organizations in these matters. Some people believe that the protection of sovereignty is more important than the possible benefits of intervention, preferring that governments focus on domestic concerns. Opposing this are those who believe that humanitarian intervention is necessary to resolve many conflicts and that the preservation of life trumps all else. Still another mentality suggests that these two goals are not mutually

Humanitarian intervention is something that is questioned by many people. Is it ever justified, or is it something that should be prevented? To fully understand the benefits humanitarian intervention has, you need to understand what this term means, why there are some people against it, and why some support it. Like most things we encounter, humanitarian intervention can be improved in many ways, but this does not mean it is not justified. If we do not step in to help those in need, even when we have the available resources, it seems to be a crime within itself. I believe that humanitarian intervention is justified and should not be stopped.

The discussion on humanitarian intervention emerged in the 1990s with the end of the Cold War and severe ethnical violence taking place. However, the legal roots of humanitarian intervention are found on Chapter VII of UN Charter and UN Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of International Court of Justice, 1945; Convention on Genocide, 1948). With the "second wave of democratization" occurring from the late 1940s to 1960s it was strongly embraced the concept of sovereignty by the new liberated states (Huntington, 1991). Same concept is used currently as a counter-argument to humanitarian intervention (J. Bajorja & R. McMahon, 2013). However, the co-founders of ICISS argue “...that sovereign states are defined not by the inviolability of their borders -- the assumption of the post-colonial era – but by their obligation to protect their citizens” (Homans, 2011).