Humanitarian Intervention Is Certainly Among The Most Debated

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.

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

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 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).

In fact, many still attribute the instability and poverty of the Great Lakes region directly to the Rwandan genocide and the long-lasting scars it has left. Thus, the importance of intervention in events of the genre of the Rwandan genocide is clear. The impacts of mass atrocities, like genocide or war crimes extend beyond just the people being targeted, but rather, affect the whole country, the whole region, the whole world. The ripple effects of a genocide are far-reaching and catastrophic, making it essential that intervention occurs before such events are allowed to run their devastating course. Along with our moral responsibility to ensure that sovereign states do not use their sovereignty with impunity, the interconnectedness of our globalized world make it essential that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, a policy of interventionism for humanitarian purposes with clear parameters, is used to avert future Rwanda's, Congo’s and Burundi’s from

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

Herein lies the central dilemma of deploying armed force in humanitarian interventions for peace. I have talked about the good that can be brought about by peacekeeping forces, even suggesting that the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Rwanda should have intervened more proactively to prevent the genocide in 1994.

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

The history of humanitarian intervention was born in 1967 in West Africa. The Nigerian province of Biafra was going through a civil war. The separatist biafran rebels were fighting against the Nigerian federal army. The biafran rebels were fighting for a separate state while the other was fighting to keep Nigeria as one. The violence lead to deaths of civilians and this inspired the doctors from aid organizations to come and check on the people of Biafra. The army blocked the roads in the province, and this lead to shortages of food and now the new killer was famine. The famine changed everything as it attracted the world and the international community towards the biafran cause. Images of malnourished kids and starving women captured the world and

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

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

Humanitarian intervention has been widely debated over the last couple of decades, causing arguments to rise of what constitutes humanitarian intervention and if the Responsibility to Protect doctrine has become to politicized to be reliable. These accounts are backed-up on how interventions are being implemented through-out the world in various intrastate and international conflicts. Humanitarian intervention and R2P have produced debates on the morality, legality, and operational credibility the organizations now retain. Along with these debates, concerns of NATO and the Security Council’s actions bring to light the concern if humanitarian intervention can be relied on in effort of peace. These questions facilitate concern and instability throughout the world, and breeds inability for peace-efforts to be conducted. As such, humanitarian intervention is a crucial effort towards peace; it subsequently undermines the issues surrounding sovereignty and the idea that sovereignty is the utmost importance to a state’s livelihood. For humanitarian intervention and R2P to succeed, a reform needs to be implemented within the system; sovereignty should not be held authoritatively and states should be held accountable for their actions; regardless of their allies’ influential opinions.

If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?