Humanitarian Intervention Essay

In comparison, in his book Saving Strangers, Nicholas J. Wheeler sets out to argue for what he calls a “solidarist” view of humanitarian intervention, and attempts to dispute the arguments for the contrary “pluralist” or “realist” view. Both books are very different in composition, but both set out to answer many of the difficult questions that are brought forth in the humanitarian intervention debate. Although it is clear that Humanitarian Intervention attempts to present the reader with many different viewpoints on the subject, on many levels these arguments converge well with that of Saving Strangers in that its contributors more often discuss the need for reform in international law or a looser adherence to it in certain situations, as well as a questioning of the legal priority sovereignty has over human rights. In essence, the purpose of Holzgrefe and Keohane’s book is to allow the reader to survey a variety of arguments to formulate his or her own viewpoint on humanitarian intervention, while Wheeler’s book is an attempt to convince the reader of his “solidarist” views on the subject. Because of this, it is easier to find a clear, proposed solution from Saving Strangers than Humanitarian Intervention because of the more varied perspectives present in the latter.

From a decade in “Red” Vietnam to a decade in “Terrorist” Iraq, Post-WWII America consistently has forced its involvement into conflicts, claiming to be defending human rights and democracy. The problem is that the Red Scare had been brainwashing Americans into associating Communism with people who were bent on world domination. America was only viewed as the enemy by the Communists because we insisted on being so. Furthermore, we face a similar problem against those who believe in terrorist causes. Not all nations are equally targeted, but by our reactions alone, the United States has managed to become the primary target. Decades ago, we forgot that Communism, while dangerous to democracy, does not have to be

With the end of the Cold War Era, humanitarian interventionism became an increasing part of foreign policy in the United States, shaping its interactions with other states; furthermore, it is an issue of controversy and has had mixed results. This paper will examine the way in which the United States responded to two different humanitarian crises in the 1990s, one by intervening and one by ignoring the situation. In the case of Somalia, a country struck by famine, the United States chose to act, due to public opinion, the perceived image of the intervention, and the wishes of then President George H.W. Bush. Contrarily, the genocide in Rwanda failed to receive any intervention from the United States, due to changes in public opinion and

According to Aristotle’s virtue of ethics, one of the false courage is ignorance. Despite to the awareness of humanitarian distress by their government and the encouragement of legal actions, if the U.S. did not take action to intervene, they would have fallen under the category of ignorance. However, if the U.S. intervene without taking considerable measures, they would have fallen in the passion type of false courage. Therefore, a well-balanced observation of the possible outcome and what action to take will result in a virtue action. The application of Natural Law ethics’ Doctrine of Double Effect can be used as a means to determine the morally right action. The question of whether the action is permissible can be affirmed through the international

In the debates raised by humanitarian intervention raises the question of the need to create a new "right of intervention" in humanitarian terms when there is already a binding law (Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Genocide) and the UN Charter, in Chapter VII, allows intervention in the internal affairs of a State in the case of "threat against peace." Among the other issues raised, there those actors interference (NGOs, international and intergovernmental organizations, States ...), as well as its extension to other areas: democratic interference, judicial interference, environmental

Humanitarian action: There is hardly a universal definition of what is or should be humanitarian action, every humanitarian organization or actor using its own. However, common core elements can be found in most definitions and could be summarized as aid and actions 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. 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

Therefore, some sort of cosmopolitanism is necessary and beneficial on a global scale, but before this social theory can reach its full potential and effectively promote worldwide human rights, some changes must be made. In this analysis, I will discuss, why some form cosmopolitanism is necessary, and will also discuss the changes that must be made to cosmopolitanism.

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.

Humanitarian intervention has been debated since long time ago, since the end of Cold War. This issue has been a good point in International Relation studies. Many intervene has been done before and it was started in Rwanda and Balkans genocide tragedies in 1994. This dispute happened between the Hutu and Tutsi, ethnic group from Rwanda. Hutu extremist blamed Tutsi bring a lot of bad social impact to the country, they were also accused as the people behind rebel group named Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). In 1992 the tension between two ethnic became hotter than ever by the use of propaganda and politic maneuver by Habyarimana and its group. The tension reach its point in 1994 when a helicopter carried Habyarimana was shot down, and the violence began immediately after that. Hutu starting to collect their people and launched an attack to Tutsi, and everyone who try to slow, oppose or even stop their action killed, include political leaders and their own people, the Hutu. All the people who’s Tutsi and even suspected as a Tutsi was killed, entire family murdered, kids died, woman brutally raped, a mass destruction of humanity. From the beginning in 6 April 1994 and weeks after that, 800.000 men, woman, and child died. This resulted because of the elite promote fear and hatred to make themselves ruling the government, and make them keep their power. They believe by made extermination campaign would create a solidarity within the country, but in other hand, it just create a

Cosmopolitanism is the belief system that every single individual has a place with a solitary group, in view of a mutual ethical quality. In political phrases, it consists of an ideological function of awareness and criticism. In sociological phrases, it is far a reconfigured device for members of the family in a worldwide global (Gonçalves, 2015). To quote Appiah, cosmopolitanisms is an ideology that can be define as “citizen of the world” (cited in Brookes, 2006). Moreover, cosmopolitans additionally agree with that each one human beings come under the same ethical requirements. In the face of cosmopolitanisms, the limits between nations, states, cultures or societies are therefore morally inappropriate, as “cosmopolitanism indicates a commitment to universal values” (Pitty, Stokes & Smith, 2008).

As for the core values of the proposed cosmopolitan model (and new shape of global political order should, in our view, be cosmopolitan in nature), it is rooted in equal moral dignity of all men. Cosmopolitanism has to pledge for global democracy of individuals (but also of ethnic groups and states, at least in initial phases of reform process), where all people should ideally be authorized to participate in decision-making that would later oblige them. Differences in power (though necessary and recommended to a certain point) must be put aside when deciding and ensuring decent capabilities of every human being to follow its chosen life path. All states, individuals and groups are treated equally. Shared and widely-recognized human nature based on needs (not fixed, but ones that are to be imagined and re-defined always again) serves as a precondition for global deliberation and insitution-building, since the cosmopolitan authority may be maintained only if all individuals and groups perceive themselves as relatively equal (in the sense their dignity or worth is the same as those of others, and that they have enough material

In terms of assistance, what would entail as a negative consequence would be results that push the limitations of humanitarian principles. Of the core principles that necessitate how humanitarian assistance should be provided, this paper will focus on defining those of doing “no harm “and remaining neutral. These need to be implemented with a great deal of attention if organizations wish to not be held responsible for the damaging effect of their actions (Kahn & Lucchi, 2009).

This paper initially examines what are ethics are and the reasons that people require ethics. Following on the paper looks at the areas of good and bad ethics, and the reasons that these people inherit these characteristics. There is then an analysis of the impacts that society has on individuals’ ethical codes, as well as a brief insight into two of the main proponents of what these ethical codes are and where we derive them from. The paper concludes with the author’s overall opinion on the subject of ethics.

This essay focuses on one of the most controversial topics in international politics. The question of when, if ever, is it acceptable for states to take strict and in particular coercive military action against another state for the purpose of protecting humans at risk. After the end of the cold war, this became a lingering issue in international politics. During this period, there have been many cries for intervention - some of them being answered and some being ignored. But there continues to be a difference of opinion in the international community as to whether there is an imperative requirement of the right to intervention. If so, when should this right be exercised and who should be responsible for carrying out such an important task? These are just some of the questions highlighted in the following argument.

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