Humanitarian Intervention Essay

A situation in which humanitarian intervention may seem appropriate, is to protect a nation from tyranny. The barbarians were accused of having tyrannical leaders and oppressive laws that included slavery and human sacrifice. To justify humanitarian intervention, Vitoria brings up the point that God has

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.

David Rieff talks about the idea of the “international community which gives both the humanitarian worker and the victims of crisis “false hope” that something will be done (Rieff, 2003). He says that “the moment one taps on to the idea of the international community, it (humanitarianism) falls part like a toy” (Rieff 2003, p.9). The concept of international community, however vague or disastrous it might seem or sound, is also the source of logistics for

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

Creating relations between races and ethnicity's has always been vital to the success of the world. The United States and the international community have been, more often than not, late to stop violent acts against humanity. It took decades after the United Nations was created, and after a horrendous genocide in Rwanda, for the International Criminal Court to be created. Despite these two establishments created for international peace and security, crimes against humans rights are still occurring.When human rights are being violated, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies to intervene in ethnic conflicts. While others may say humanitarian intervention goes against a state’s sovereign authority,it is necessary to protect

This New York Times article covers the reasoning behind the U.N.’s failure to put an end to the Bosnian genocide. Up until 1995, the U.S. refused to intervene in the genocide taking place in Bosnia. The American government refused sending in their own troops and also vetoed Security Council draft resolutions to increase the number of UN peacekeepers. The American foreign policy toward Bosnia changed in 1995 due to new evidence of the atrocities being committed in Bosnia. This evidence was becoming common knowledge to the public and the United States’ lack of action was becoming an embarrassment. Because their inaction would make America look bad, this gave them no choice but to interfere in

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

The war and genocide in Bosnia was unpredictable and tragic. Or was it? Let’s start by stating that obviously the war was tragic; however, was it truly unpredictable. Many argue that, “...the outbreak of fighting in the 1990s was merely the latest chapter in a long history of an ethnic conflict that is too complex for outsiders to understand and too intractable to be resolved” (Johnston & Eastvold, 2004). So if that is true then we should come to expect religiously motivated conflicts like the Bosnian Genocide to continue to happen on an endless timeline. Except that there were certain key moments in Bosnia that tilted this situation past the breaking point. Continuing on with that point, Muslims played a pivotal role in starting the war and for that they were particularly targeted by the genocide.

It is vital that world powers who can make a large impact take a stand in these events so that millions of innocent civilians do not die. If these world powers would have provided more economic, military, and health-based aid to those being oppressed in the Bosnian genocide, several atrocities could have been avoided, such as the one that occurred in Srebrenica. If nations play a more responsible role in the overall prosperity of the world, it will drastically impede future acts of violence and will lower the amount of unnecessary deaths. Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) needs to continue to indict and prosecute those who were responsible for the mass

The preface begins with the author recalling an unfortunate event relating to genocide. In 1995, Bosnian Serbs annihilated Sarajevo by volumes of shells and other bombardments. As a result, the United States and NATO demanded an end to this atrocity; the Serbs, fearful of the contesters ceased. In a state of liberty, children began to spend most of their time outside playing. Months later, the Clinton administration decided to withdraw support from the situation, hoping that the situation would end itself.

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

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

In principal a humanitarian intervention is “an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Centre for Strategic Studies New

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