Humanitarian Intervention

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.

Although many say humanitarian aid is civilizing war by withdrawing injured on the battlefield and removing them from hostilities. Personally, humanitarian aid does not only help very little during the war, but they prolong the war to get more money and benefits that they claim to need for the sake of the people’s lives. When the Nigerian civil war began in 1967, humanitarian aids were there to help, but they did more harm during the war then they ever did good. The organizations were the reason behind the year and a half extension of this civil war causing “tens of thousands dead, many more

Declaring war without sufficient reason is wrong. These reasons include self-defense against an act of aggression, and defense of others against an aggressor nation. In humanitarian intervention, you would be defending another people from an aggressor nation, making it a justifiable act.

Before relating the R2P to the Darfur Crisis it is important to understand the fundamental tenants of the R2P debate in relation to humanitarian intervention and the repercussions for state sovereignty. The R2P concept can trace its modern origin to the address given by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, to the General Assembly in 1999 putting forward the challenge of preventing another Rwanda.

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).

While conventions have been in place since WWII to define war crimes and genocide and allow prosecution of those who commit these acts, the United Nations response to these atrocities has been sporadic and disorganized. The massacre in Srebrenica shined a spotlight on the failures of the international community to prevent mass atrocities. We needed an international guideline to systematically and effectively respond to civil war and intrastate conflict. Out of this was born the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

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

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

The numerous and continuing violations of International Humanitarian Law can only be stopped and reduced if both parties to the conflict commit to implementing practical measures for protecting civilians and especially civilians with disabilities. The responsible authorities of both conflicting parties must implement training, regular supervision and the ongoing evaluation of the conduct of all persons under their command towards the protection of civilians. Specific orders for the protection of all civilians, including civilians with disabilities, must be given by the superior officers of both conflicting parties in order to stop any illegal actions by their Armed Forces or militia and they must suppress any violations against civilians and

After the end of the Cold War there has been an increase in the use of force for humanitarian purposes around the world in places such as, Liberia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On February 2001, the Foreign Policy Research Institute hosted a major conference on the question of humanitarian intervention and its implications for American foreign policy. The conference focused on examining the recent history of humanitarian intervention and its prospects in the new century (Wheeler, 2000, 128). Thus, this paper is going to review the existing literature of humanitarian intervention. Firstly, it will define the notion of humanitarian interventions and analyze the dilemma between intervention and the concept of sovereignty. Secondly, it will question if the United States has the legitimate right to intervene as a third party responding to humanitarian crises.

This reasoning thus begs the question, who would provide troops in the event should intervention occur? And further, what intervention framework will be used? As BRICS countries proposes, would it be likely that an R2P ‘lite’ intervention framework that focuses on a political process, rather than a military solution. Forcing the narrative on optional intervention strategies, as those proposed by the five countries that opposed the Libyan intervention, inherently carries with it genuine regard for abuse and political expediencies. However, placing humanitarian initiatives, rather than self-interest at the forefront of any discussion that involves intervention, will ensure that focus remains on the issue of prevention, protection, and peace,

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.

The legal foundation for humanitarian intervention was established in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). Genocide, as decided by the, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they (contracted members) undertake to prevent and to punish (U.N, 1948). Samantha Power in A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide highlights the calamitous intervention in Rwanda by United Nations, thoroughly bringing to light many shortcomings in current understandings and definitions of humanitarian intervention (Power, 2002). As it stands now, the concept of Humanitarian intervention has no standard, completely uncontested definition. Generally, humanitarian intervention involves the use of military forces and an intervention, in the sense that it encompasses intruding in the internal affairs of a sovereign state by sending military forces into a state that never engaged in an act of aggression against another state. (Lecture, 11/15/16).

This paper will explain and critique the position of each group in order to prove that humanitarian intervention should happen.

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