Humanitarian Intervention Essay

Over the course of this school year, the resurfacing topic of controversy is morality. Through the memoirs of Elie Wiesel, the darkness of humanity reveals itself. The sad truth this tells is that humans are callous or immoral to fellow man on an individual, national, and even global scale, leading to events that go down in history as atrocities. The international debate this raises, is whether nations, like America, should institute a policy of 'humanitarian military intervention' which is when an independent government fails to deliver human rights to the governed, other countries without permission can intervene with military force. Morality is the focus of the international debate regarding this foreign policy, because that underlying motivation

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?

For many years people have argued whether or not the U.S. should intervene in situations where people are suffering. Some people say we should be cautious of intervening in foreign countries. While some people say intervention could help change the world. After reading multiple sources, it is evident that the U.S. should intervene in situations where people in other countries are suffering, even if it means going to war. The U.S. should intervene in these situations because it can help influence our principles of democracy and it will overall help all of humanity.

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

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

I find the cases for humanitarian interventions compelling due to their abundant nature within modern society. However, the problem of the dominantly impure motives weighs heavily on my argument. The necessity of the revision lies largely in the oppressed sects’ inability within the society to resolve the disputes on their own. Without outside intervention, the causalities would often be exponentially higher. The example can be evoked of the Rwandian Genocide and the lack of international intervention. The Hutu majority turned against the Tutsi minority slaughtering three quarters of the Tutsi population. It is not to be forgotten however that thousands of Hutu’s were similarly killed due to their opposition to the genocide. In theory, the results could have been significantly less catastrophic had the international community intervened. The members of the international community however, can be seen as not having anything to benefit through intervening- such as in the case of NATO’s intervention of Kosvo where the US was arguable attempting to spead their sphere of influence- and therefore are hesitate to engage in hositilites. I agree with Walzers revisions to the strict non-interventionist policy the Legalist Paradigm

Realists argue IOs are only forums in which states pursue their interests. I believe that this is wrong to begin with, as IOs are more than forums to realise states’ self-interest. They are also largely important for other means, essentially, in maintaining world peace and order. This paper will mainly explore on two most controversial IOs that are the UN and the EU using Rationalist approach. To support the argument, this research will use two relatable in-depth cases that are the 2011 Military Intervention in Libya and the European Union (EU) on the Syrian refugee crisis to demonstrate if IOs are only forums for states to pursue their interest or not. The research is important to inform the readers that IOs are not simply a medium for states’ personal gain, but also to cover the betterment of the world.

One of our iconic realist presidents—Theodore Roosevelt, in the 1904 State of the Union Address, declared that the United States must be prepared to militarily intervene in the affairs of sovereign states in situations wherein it is justified by virtue of halting mass atrocities, limited only by having the will and the strength of arms to do so (Bass, 2008). In contract, Desch (2001) offers the conservative realist positions that affect the decision making process regarding humanitarian intervention for the purpose of safeguarding human rights; that war is legitimate only when used in conjunction with national interest, that individual human rights are superseded by the rights of the community, and that human interaction will always contain elements of conflict. Therefore, it is better to respect the international laws which in turn reduce the need for “constant vigilance” to safeguard national security.

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

First of all, under realism, IOs are not powerful independent actors in international society. Amongst realism’s central axioms is the assertion that the state is “the only legal actor internationally,” (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2014, 544). This effectively means that the state is the only powerful independent actor in international society. Furthermore, this principle also establishes that since IOs are not states, they do not have any power within the international system, thus, they cannot be powerful independent actors in international society. There are instances where the state has ignored the

For our first debate in class, my group has been assigned to talk about the cons of the international community having the “responsibility to protect”. A state's choice of whether or not to intervene in other states that are potentially break human rights laws infringes on a state's sovereignty. Intervening, no matter how crucial it may seem at the moment, is illegal nonetheless. Intervention is defined “as coercive foreign involvement in the internal affairs of a state; violation, short of war, of a state’s sovereign rights; imposition that impairs a state’s policy independence” (Donnelly 254). If intervention is a violation of state sovereignty, and therefore illegal, states should not take intervention lightly. The “Responsibility to Protect” can also be clouded by political or personal interests of a state. While it might appear that the state is helping another state's citizens, interests could be clouded. Intervening in a state could possibly lead to production of war, which in turn can produce unwanted causalities and consequences for all states involved. Irregular intervention in humanitarian crises around the world can ultimately produce de-legitimization of human rights.

Sovereignty is a modern political theory of international relations that is supported by a multitude of political theorists to rid the world of barbaric methods of competition. A sovereign is a supreme political power that works best with the existence of state lines and the geographic location of the people ruled under it to ease the organizational constraints of having a large number of people and territories. Contrarily, Charles Beitz heavily criticizes this idea of a sovereign because of its lack of attention to humans as individuals and the interests they should be free to pursue. In his eyes, state lines should not be the only limit to which individuals should receive or have access to natural resources. He believes a sovereign takes

This idea of self-preservation is essential to any sovereign state, and all take a similar stance on national security as the United States. One of protection. In order to accomplish this it is necessary for states to be able to implement goals on an international stage, thus requiring a certain amount of power. When it comes to the issue of obtaining power, two major methods become apparent. The control over space and the control over physical place. Both of these options available to states focus on power as “Condign (based on force), Compensatory (the use of various resources) or Conditioned (result of persuasion), and their sources as Personality (individuals) and Property (their material resources)” (Galbraith, 1983).

Humanitarian intervention represents a revolution in the international law, as it challenges the old Treaty of Westphalia (Treaty of Westphalia, 1648), which certified the domestic sovereignty of state actors. This principle was also endorsed by the UN Charter in 1945 in the article 2(7), where it was stated that “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state” (Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of International Court of Justice, 1945, p.3). However, Chapter VII grants