Humanitarian Intervention Into The Affairs Of Another State Ever Be Justified

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.

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?

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

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

Humanitarian effort is an interesting topic to me. While reading about these efforts it is clear that people are at the heart of such efforts. Humanitarian efforts should be guided by goals such as; humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality. These important principles should be at the core to humanitarian work. It is critical to distinguish humanitarian action from other forms of activities. Humanitarian Laws, International Human Rights Law, and International Refugee Laws provides the frame work for fundamental legal standards relating to the protection of groups and individuals, as well as to the nature of the assistance being provided. In thinking about this topic along with the first of two questions needed to complete this assignment, I researched International Law as a Basis for Humanitarian Intervention. I discovered that there is no state right to humanitarian interventions. Furthermore, I learned that no government has the right to violate the territorial integrity and political independence of another country, locality or state under any circumstance. In my own opinion basic human rights have to be met no matter the circumstance.

With the end of the Cold War Era, humanitarian interventionism became an increasing part of foreign policy in the United States, shaping its interactions with other states; furthermore, it is an issue of controversy and has had mixed results. This paper will examine the way in which the United States responded to two different humanitarian crises in the 1990s, one by intervening and one by ignoring the situation. In the case of Somalia, a country struck by famine, the United States chose to act, due to public opinion, the perceived image of the intervention, and the wishes of then President George H.W. Bush. Contrarily, the genocide in Rwanda failed to receive any intervention from the United States, due to changes in public opinion and

What comes to mind when you hear a country is going through a humanitarian crisis? Perhaps destruction, genocide, surveillance, propaganda, civilians not having a voice, and much more. This is what happened in the city of Aleppo in Syria. Aleppo was one of the oldest city with marvelous medieval architecture, rich cultural history, and its popularity in tourism. Aleppo was an open museum and a home to two and half million people, but all of that was lost in the Battle of Aleppo. Syria is ruled by the dictator Bashar al-Assad and has been in power for seventeen years. Assad restricted Syrian civilians from freedom of speech and according to CNN “gave the government broad power to detain people for perceived threats to national security” (CNN).

Although non-militant humanitarian intervention holds many superior traits to military intervention, sometimes global powers have no alternative except to demonstrate military force. Humanitarian military intervention must only be utilized in a limited set of circumstances. First, global powers must only employ military force to combat extreme catastrophes such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Second, global powers may use military intervention as a last resort, having exhausted all other non-militant options. Finally, interventions who meet the first two criteria must only respond to the situation with a proportionate response. In his article, “Humanitarian Intervention: Loose Ends ,” Fernando Tesón describes this

Humanitarian interventions, because of their complex and highly controversial nature, are open to wide-scale criticism within the international community. Furthermore, many claim the intervention in Bosnia is an example of how these flaws hamper peaceful

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.

Humanitarian intervention is certainly among the most debated topics of recent years in stately, organizational, and academic forums. The focal point of the controversy is the conflict between traditional ethics and practices of state sovereignty and newly accepted norms on the use of force for humanitarian resolutions. Despite the political and social disagreements between a given set of nation states, humanitarian intervention is now an adopted, international practice that demands intervention anytime a high percentage of the population (of any state) is at risk or under threat from their own authorities or those of another state.

To begin it might be best to define what humanitarian intervention is, the definition most recognized being “the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied”. As more and more research was done most of the definitions were close to exact with this one even if they weren’t for it or against it since it is neutral and is the most exact definition of it.

Humanitarian action: There is hardly a universal definition of what is or should be humanitarian action, every humanitarian organization or actor using its own. However, common core elements can be found in most definitions and could be summarized as aid and actions made to save lives, alleviate suffering as well as maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters. What seems to differentiate humanitarian action from other forms of foreign assistance is its commitment to be guided by a set of principles: Humanity, Impartiality, neutrality and independence

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