Humanitarian Intervention At The 2005 World Summit

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.

The efficiency of humanitarian intervention is normative because of people having different views on the output and the unlikeliness of every one being pleased by the new regime therefore it is very hard to affirm the real results of the intervention. In 2011, a group of countries intervened during the Libyan civil war, which lead to the abolition of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. The Operation Unified Protector by NATO was partly successful because they achieved to kill the dictator on 20th October, but partly ineffective because the standards of living in Libya have not increased and the state is facing a lack of government’s ruling. This case study supports the statement that HI could be an abandoned project as it is not always favourable to everyone.

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?

To understand the impact of humanitarian crises and how international politics play a role, a common definition of such crises must be understood. In his book “Humanitarian Crises and the International

What does 200,000, 800,000 and 11 million mean to you? Anyone seeing these numbers simply just sees them as a random group of figures; however, to the victims of former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the Holocausts, these are the number of civilian casualties as a result of genocide, or the methodical massacre of a sizeable group of individuals. Throughout history, there have been several examples of genocide. In some instances, those affected received aid or a form of intervention, while others did not. I believe humanitarian intervention is permissible, especially in the cases of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and victims of the Holocausts. When it comes to saving innocent lives, protecting human rights, and preserving the state, humanitarian intervention

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

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 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

Following this crisis, the UN secretary created a consensus regarding how the “right of humanitarian intervention’ should be implemented. The second argument, Robinson set forth in his essay is how 9/11 marked a turning point for U.S foreign

This reasoning thus begs the question, who would provide troops in the event should intervention occur? And further, what intervention framework will be used? As BRICS countries proposes, would it be likely that an R2P ‘lite’ intervention framework that focuses on a political process, rather than a military solution. Forcing the narrative on optional intervention strategies, as those proposed by the five countries that opposed the Libyan intervention, inherently carries with it genuine regard for abuse and political expediencies. However, placing humanitarian initiatives, rather than self-interest at the forefront of any discussion that involves intervention, will ensure that focus remains on the issue of prevention, protection, and peace,

First, while understanding that R2P is a broad framework with preventive and reactive measures, military intervention can only be allowed when the State has manifestly failed to protect its populations and when peaceful means have proven to be inadequate. Second, intervention under the R2P must specifically protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Third, as agreed to in 2005, R2P legitimizes the use of force only if it is employed collectively through the UN Security

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.

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

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