Humanitarian Intervention In Syri Case Study

In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as a military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless one is intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.

The efficiency of humanitarian intervention is normative because of people having different views on the output and the unlikeliness of every one being pleased by the new regime therefore it is very hard to affirm the real results of the intervention. In 2011, a group of countries intervened during the Libyan civil war, which lead to the abolition of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. The Operation Unified Protector by NATO was partly successful because they achieved to kill the dictator on 20th October, but partly ineffective because the standards of living in Libya have not increased and the state is facing a lack of government’s ruling. This case study supports the statement that HI could be an abandoned project as it is not always favourable to everyone.

This memo seeks to offer insight into the current emergency in Syria and how it threatens the security of US. It is hoped that it will help shape US foreign policy for Syria with the aim of protecting Americans from acts of terrorism and at the same time save the lives of Syrians.

Humanitarian action is what the world turns to in case there is a crisis in any part of the world. But as David Rieff suggests in his book, “A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis,” there is a crisis in the humanitarian world and space. He draws from first personal experience in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo to tell how some of the challenges humanitarian organizations face; including their struggle to be neutral and apolitical.

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?

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

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.

I feel it is my responsibility as an American citizen to offer you a critical perspective, in regards to the crisis in Syria, perhaps not seen through the eyes of someone in your distinguished position. Let me speak the words that a share of our fellow citizens have had silenced by the authority of power figures who claim that the United States has an obligation – an obligation to seemingly “mother” other countries, providing protection against any and all harm. I will admit that the conflict overseas is undoubtedly a tragedy and by no means should it be overlooked. However, it is not the responsibility of the United States to play peacemaker among nations, and it certainly does not allow for the disregarding of our own immediate issues.

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.

Humanitarian intervention was put in place to help protect the people. humanitarian intervention occurs when a government, holding the powers of the state and representing the sovereign people, fails to protect the people. Ellery Stowell defines humanitarian intervention as “the reliance upon force for the justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment which is so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the sovereign is presumed to act with reason and justice” (1921, 53) (Benjamin, 2010).

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

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.

I will shed the light on the Security Council which is the keystone of the United Nations system of collective security, and its role in maintaining international peace and security by settling disputes pacifically under chapter VI of the UN Charter and by taking action regarding threats, breaches, and acts of aggression under chapter VII. I will then discuss the several options that Nation states had resorted to in the past to intervene in order to protect civilians. And I will finally highlight the notion of the responsibility to protect which emerged in 2001 and its implication on populations under

In September 2016, Secretary John Kerry negotiated a cease-fire agreement between the United States and Russia, in order to allow aid convoys to provide relief. However, on September nineteenth, 18 out of the 31 convoys were attacked by an airstrike. The attack resulted in the death of 21 civilians and one Syrian Arab Crescent member (Hennessy-Fiske, 2016). Some immediately assumed Russia was responsible and should be held accountable for breaking the agreement. However, Russia and Bashar al-Assad rejected the claim.

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