Essay on Humanitarian Intervention

The United Nations do multiple things such as following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN does this by working to prevent conflict; helping parties in conflict make peace; peacekeeping; and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish. These activities often overlap and should reinforce one another, to be effective. The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter, making the promotion and protection of human rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities. The united nations are a great group of people who are looking out for us ever since Canada has joined this group they have been able to make an impact such as. Today, Canada continues to uphold the UN by actively participating in the organization's activities and providing financial support. Canada consistently brings pragmatic ideas and solutions to the table, from peacekeeping proposals in the 1950s, to creating the International Criminal Court and banning landmines in the 1990s. Today, some of their current goals are to assist war-affected children, or to improve the UN’s management and

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

The main problems do seem to be on the surface but actually the problem that really big moral communities exist in Indonesia are so damaged. The humanitarian crisis that is very influential to the development of the Indonesia future now this fact impressed ruled out by the apparatus of Government. This would lead to its nation will be worse and is seen low by other Nations.

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.

Although genocide in Darfur has resulted where, “thousands of civilians were killed, 700,000 more were forcibly displaced within Darfur, and 130,000 fled to refugee camps in neighboring Chad” (Christian). The Sudanese government continues to impede “humanitarian access throughout Darfur” (Christian). The situation in Darfur is “the greatest humanitarian crisis in Africa” (Christian) and the number of those killed or displaced continues to increase. Minimal refugees have been allowed to return to Darfur from the displacement camps in Chad and even if they were allowed to return, refugees are reluctant because the country is still unstable. The Sudanese government will not allow relief workers into Darfur. Humanitarian relief is impacted, by

When discussing why states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others, which is best answered as states intervene in the occurrences that are seen as the greatest violations in human rights, while having the main powers decide if intervention will best benefit them. Humanitarian intervention is best defined as “the means to prevent or stop a gross violation of human rights in a state, where such state is either incapable or unwilling to protect its own people, or is actively persecuting them” (Rashid, 2012). Liberalism is the best theory to support my answer because liberalism promotes peace and stability globally. Based off of these goals, the United Nations was founded after World War II. During the 1990’s, also known as the decade

I believe the unfolding of human rights' development was not only impacted by, but was a consequential urge of globalization. Despite the fact that humanitarian agreements already existed before, like the first Geneva Convention adopted in 1864, it was only in the aftermatch of the World War II that the international community increasingly worried about such issues (“Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949”, n.d.). After the Holocaust, not only the term “genocide” was defined by the very first time (“Raphael Lemkin and Creation of the word “Genocide”, 2016), but the League of Nations was improved and in 1945 a new international collaboration was created: The United Nations (“History of the United Nations”, n.d.).

What is humanitarian intervention? Well there is no standardized definition that has been made official, but general consensus typically refers it, as using military force to intervene in another states affairs. A blogger from Ljubljana, Slovenia defines humanitarian intervention as; a state 's use of "military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." (Marjanovic). With that said, this paper will examine the article “Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World”, written by

Humanitarian Intervention is perhaps the most controversial principle of international law and although it has been theoretically present for a long period of time but it is in the recent decades we find real development and practical implementation of it. There are a number of questions that have been haunting the international community and holding them back from adopting a liberal approach towards the Principle of Humanitarian Intervention. Whether or not it is morally permissible or even morally obligatory for a state to intervene in internal affairs of a State to stop Grave Human Rights violation? A States claim of Immunity against intervention based on the longstanding Principles of Sovereignty is legitimate to what extent? Whether

Dated back to December 10, 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt and UN General Assembly drafted the declaration in which we know as The Universal of Human Rights because of the Cold War. This declaration sought forward as an attempt to define the inner logic of the history, correspondingly saving humanity from diverse problem and offer a productive social organization. Within its document the declaration analyzes a system of elaborated and coordinated rules in which the world community can use as guidelines for an adequate standard of living. By drafting the Declaration, Eleanor and the UN made it the perfection solution for escaping social inequity, wars, violence, and compulsion against human beings. It was for these thirty article of rights that set

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

In 2011, Operation Unified Protector performed air strikes over Libya, destabilizing the country and enabling the murder of Libya’s dictator of 42 years, Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi. The United Nations Security Council justified the Libya Intervention for NATO allies on the grounds of an imminent humanitarian crisis that was thought to occur at the direction of Gaddafi. Thus, the United States, UNSC, and NATO allies are culpable for the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi, because of their misuse of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for their “Humanitarian Intervention” in 2011.

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.

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