Humanitarian Intervention : The Violation Of Human Rights In The International Community

Imagine for a moment what it would be like if the entire population of Sonoma County, California was killed, and twenty years later not many people knew a great deal about it. When over 500,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a great tragedy. However, no one rushed to the country’s aid. Now it is vital that the horrors of the instance that violated the human rights of so many, is not forgotten. Human rights are the universal actions and objects that all people are entitled to because they are human. Human rights have been violated in numerous ways over time, typically as a result of a person in power having their own best interests in mind rather than the peoples´. Various groups, such as Amnesty

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

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.

The world's nations have a "responsibility to protect" people from the worst human rights abuses. For instance, the United

Should the slightest abuse in human rights give the right for states to “intervene”. Who decides those human rights? The West? The U.S invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction and because of the horrible man Saddam Hussein was. However, when he gassed his own people, there was no invasion of the country. The world may not be able to agree on all human rights issues; however they should realize that everyone has the right to live. When there is systematic killing of an ethnic civilian group, genocide is occurring. There are no acts of genocides, there is just

However, there is an extent to how far countries can go when reinforcing their power, and the boundary is that they cannot make inhabitants unhappy because humans are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are fundamental rights that were adopted by the United Nations to protect human beings. Therefore, differing standards of behavior are generally not reasons to intervene except the right to privacy, rights of the child, and rights of gender equality from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated because the unhappy people suffering from violations of their rights must be protected against abusive

The age old question of humanitarian intervention in the world of international politics and foreign affairs is a question with no clear answer. In some cases, intervention is seen as a sign of weakness or is taken offensively by the country in which other parties are intervening in. On the other hand, intervention by foreign parties in some cases is greatly appreciated. These two cases, on opposite ends of the spectrum, are more often than not pretty clear answers. The case of the Rwandan Genocide lies in the midpoint of this spectrum is what we will be investigating further to examine whether or not outsiders have the right to intervene, and if so, who has the right to intervene. We will examine several cases throughout recent history in the contents of this paper of intervention in hopes of finding determining factors which in turn lead to humanitarian intervention, support, or no intervention at all.

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

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).

The history of Humanitarian intervention is a controversial one. In March 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) justified the use of force against Yugoslavia, a country that at this time was having a number of atrocities being committed within it. This act welcomed by those that thought that the veto of the permanent five in the United Nations Security Council sometimes block necessary cases of intervention. According to Sarooshi (2001) they believe morality should trump legality where governments commit mass atrocities. Some claim NATO’s action is legal because it represents the “crystallization in state practice of a new customary law of humanitarian intervention.” (Sarooshi, 2001:12) According to a number of authors namely Bellamy, Chandler as this essay shall soon explore, was the downfall of any form of containing ‘humanitarian intervention’. The principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 and in 2006 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reaffirmed the R2P principle.

A recent press report by the Huffington Post "Put the 'Humanitarian ' back in Humanitarian interventions" outlined the concerns that external intervention is not the solution to ending violence. (Marshall, 2014) Humanitarian intervention has always been a contentious issue among International Organisations (IO) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). They have moral obligations to help yet bounded by structural rigidities of the organisation and the self-interests of participating states . IO and NGOs such as the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) are restricted by the challenge of trying to put together a divided international committee. This essay will discuss the moral and material limits of humanitarian intervention by IO and NGOs, relating to the interests of states involved, power of IOs and NGOs, their delay in responding to emergency situations and lastly limitations due to the sovereignty of states. International operations in Afghanistan, Rwanda, Kosovo and Somalia will serve as examples.

As has been echoed in this essay the ICISS focuses on the notion that with sovereignty comes responsibility, specifically the responsibility to protect human rights (Evans et al., 2001: 12). Thus, it is primarily the duty of the state to uphold human rights. However, “Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect” (Evans et al., 2001: XI). It is here were the emphasis is drawn to those who need the intervention rather than the nation intervening (Weiss, 2004: 138). This is important, as intervention is no longer a right of the intervening state (i.e. in so far as they can exploit the situation) but rather a responsibility of states to protect those most vulnerable, hence the shift from the terminology of ‘intervention’ to ‘responsibility’.

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

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.