Humanitarian Intervention Report

This paper considers two issues: firstly, human rights in the developing world and secondly Canada’s responsibility of humanitarian assistance. Both issues are of grave importance and are mutually exclusive - as nations lacking strong human rights standards are more likely to require the greatest humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the need for humanitarian assistance will increase as global crises become more frequent, due to climate change insecurity (Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway & Hulme, 2003). The example of climate change will be utilised throughout this paper to explore the disparaging links between climate justice and human rights. In defining humanitarian assistance this paper will take Jamieson’s (2004) definition that humanitarian assistance is a response to crises via support in the short term to overcome disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Whereas, development assistance considers the longer term issues in developing countries. By defining the two main types of assistance this paper will propose that greater investment into development aid may reduce the need for humanitarian aid as nations become more capable to support themselves. The body of this paper will consider key arguments concerning humanitarian assistance and human rights, including: Canadas humanitarian response in the developing world, the increasing need for global crisis response, human rights as a global responsibility and lastly the move from humanitarian to development assistance. In

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

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

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

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.

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

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen has attracted global attention. The Yemenis citizens cry out for help from other countries to help them stop the spread of Cholera and terrorism in the region. The United Nations Security Council has decided to intervene, however, the Security Council members are having a tough time coming to a consensus regarding what types of intervention should be used. Bolivia, a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has condemned the terrorism in Yemen and advocated for humanitarian aid being sent to help the sick and wounded.

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.

As an international community there is have an obligation to respect the basic human right of citizens but as make sure that governments respect and not the serious violation of fundamental civil and political rights. That why they are an appropriate case to have interventions to secure the individual autonomy and dignity.14 This stems from our right to duty to help a person that are experiencing grieve injustices.

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

This paper will focus upon only on two issues i.e. international legality of intervention by the UN on humanitarian grounds and the debate related to UN adopted and authorized policy of responsibility to protect (R2P) due to which unified agreement could not be achieved amongst UNSC members to carry out military intervention on humanitarian grounds to end Syrian crisis. First part of the essay will highlight briefly core spirit of the UN charter in light of stated four purposes and seven principles to ensure world peace. According to which Syrian crisis does not fulfill the prerequisites of an international crisis i.e. posing a threat to international peace and stability though the devastated crimes of human rights committed by ISIS has surely attracted the attention of international community. It will be highlighting the inherent weakness of UN charter i.e. absence of any clause to intervene on humanitarian grounds. In second part of the essay, UN mandate under R2P will be analyzed highlighting its vagueness and ambiguity due to which permanent members of UNSC could not develop consensus to react on Syrian crisis. In last part of the essay will future of Syrian crisis based upon the analysis of UN weaknesses highlighted in earlier parts as well as briefly touch upon the two models of reforms suggested by the high level report of UN panel on its reforms.

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

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