Humanitarian Intervention : Humanitarian Interventions

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.

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?

Today the United States functions in a dangerously unstable world. Proliferation, politically unstable Nations, economic instability and numerous other international issues threaten our nation and its prosperity. Therefore, the United States should protect its own global interests by striving for order and security. The US can do this by maintaining relationships between allied nations, avoid involvement in other nation’s human rights so not to hinder economic growth, and prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons in unstable groups’ hands that can threaten national and international security and stability.

The Iraq War was not a humanitarian intervention, but a humanitarian war. Humanitarian invention mainly consists of threats, and the United States made the decision to physically intervene in Iraq’s affairs. The United States main reason to go to war with Iraq was not motivated by humanitarian needs. Bush and his administration made the decision to declare war on Iraq for the sole purpose of preventing the weapons

Section one deals with the debates that surround the issues of humanitarian intervention and just war theory on the basis of international scale. One article by Holzgrefe is completely focused on the debate, stating the many ethical theories of many different theorists: from "utilitarianism; natural law; social contractrianism; communitarianism; and legal postivism" (7). Holzgrefe goes on to define what each ethical theorist is and their understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention. However, there is the idea of when it is right to intervene and when intervention is unfavorable. The most interesting part was the third section of the article.

Articles 1, 55, and 56 are the center pieces for promoting and protecting human rights. During the cold war humanitarian intervention went stagnant because the two superpowers who were facing off (US & Russia) were at odds about ideology and this caused world peace to be thrown into turmoil. The UN was very new and did not have the international legal clout to stop either superpower from promoting its system of governance through invasion or indirect military support. The Cold War caused social, economic, and political upheaval globally which allowed for the UN to revise its interpretation of humanitarian intervention. This allowed for a larger consensus among nations about which circumstances required intervention. From 1945 to 1976 five major human rights documents were adopted; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Laws of War, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Cultural Economic Civil Rights. The end of the Cold War “liberated the UN which had established 20 new peace keeping missions from 1988-1993, more than it had taken in its entire 40 year history.” (Taha, 14) The major developments of the 1990‘s for international humanitarian

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

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

has a moral imperative with its position of superpower. Humanitarian action is designed not to resolve conflicts but to protect human dignity and save lives. By evaluating interventions from the perspective of the victims rather than the interveners, it carves a new path for redefining the legitimacy and legality of interventions made in the name of human rights and humanitarianism. In general, the purpose of humanitarian governance might be not only to save lives but also to save humanity and create a cosmopolitan world order. The intervention is good not only for the object but also for the subject- it helps reaffirm the individual’s sense of her own humanity. Information and transformation technologies make it impossible to use ignorance as an excuse, and the rise of more efficient and effective delivery systems means that it is possible to respond to emergencies when something can still be done. The action of intervention would maintain the reliability of the United States, the international community, and the rule of international

Humanitarian aid is care that is given to those that are victims of natural disasters or those that are located in places where war is occurring or has occurred. This care can include anything from food and water, to medical supplies and shelter, such as tents. A lot of people may not be aware of the problems that can arise as a result of humanitarian aid, since many only hear the positive outcomes of aid. There are both disadvantages and advantages to humanitarian aid during violent times, and there is a question about whether or not the negative aspects may actually outweigh the good.

Humanitarian interventions violate the principle of non-armed intervention provided by the United Nations. Traditionally, Western states are the ones who increasingly use this medium to give legitimacy to a security plan to protect its global economic interests. The fact invoked humanitarian grounds to intervene in domestic affairs of other countries is done to protect economic interests of interveners countries. Paradoxically states most involved are precisely those that contribute more funds to the United Nations for humanitarian action. Western nations have invoked numerous moral reasons born of natural law by which an intervention is justified as such: to penalize the wrong and protect the innocent. As Nardin (P.70) argued: “The tradition of natural law or common morality, sees humanitarian intervention as an expression of the basic moral duty to protect the innocent from the violence.” International organizations based on international law such as the United Nations, the International Red Cross, UNHCR among others, when they intervene in conflicts are always faced with a moral and ethical dilemma because their interests do not coincide with the benefit of the intervenor's countries.

With reference to one example of a humanitarian intervention since 1990, assess whether it was ‘humanitarian’.

The notion of intervention based on humanitarian ideals is not a novel concept in the realm of international relations. Even Hitler maintained that his 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia was conducted to protect the lives of those Czechoslovaks endangered by their government (Bellamy, 2009). However, the doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has attracted significant mention in political discourse and academia since the end of the cold war – not least with the surfacing of state-sponsored violence during the ‘Arab Spring’. This essay, with the help of relevant examples – such as Kosovo, Darfur, Libya and Syria – will aim to debate the notion that R2P will only be utilised when it is in the interests of major powers.

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.

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this