Humanitarian Intervention Vs Humanitarian Intervention

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

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 debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

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

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.

There were many difficulties which arose as there were many questions which occurred such as ‘who has the right to authority?’ to authorize military intervention for humanitarian purposes? (Heywood, 2011) This is usually referred to the UN security council, this emphasises on the power in which the security council holds and how much responsibility they have, to protect and maintain peace and security. Secondly, Kofi Annan tried to reconcile the tension between sovereignty and human rights, by arguing that, in a context of globalization and international cooperation’s, the state should be viewed as ‘the servant of people and vice versa’ (Annan,1999) . Changing attitudes towards the norm are reflected in the growth in the influence of such doctrines of intervention as the responsibility to protect is that there is an onus on the international community to intervene in situations, where the lives of a country’s civilian population are threatened by the actions of government (Guelke, 2012) However, this can be seen as a disadvantages towards ‘responsibility to protect’ as stated above people’s lives and safety are in the hands of governments which in some occasions cannot be good, as not all civilians agree with government verdicts. Finally, Russia is regarded as a weak rival of the west in geo-strategic terms, its capacity to project power remains very limited (Guelke, 2012). Another example includes; Iraq, they do not follow the human right law, which shows that they are in need for protection to prevent waste of supreme court time and funding. Iraq has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, due to lack of human rights, which is defining the lives of civilians within their country. It is evident that there is a significant need for the right to protect in countries such as

First, while understanding that R2P is a broad framework with preventive and reactive measures, military intervention can only be allowed when the State has manifestly failed to protect its populations and when peaceful means have proven to be inadequate. Second, intervention under the R2P must specifically protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Third, as agreed to in 2005, R2P legitimizes the use of force only if it is employed collectively through the UN Security

What is humanitarian intervention? Well there is no standardized definition that has been made official, but general consensus typically refers it, as using military force to intervene in another states affairs. A blogger from Ljubljana, Slovenia defines humanitarian intervention as; a state 's use of "military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." (Marjanovic). With that said, this paper will examine the article “Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World”, written by

Humanitarian Intervention is perhaps the most controversial principle of international law and although it has been theoretically present for a long period of time but it is in the recent decades we find real development and practical implementation of it. There are a number of questions that have been haunting the international community and holding them back from adopting a liberal approach towards the Principle of Humanitarian Intervention. Whether or not it is morally permissible or even morally obligatory for a state to intervene in internal affairs of a State to stop Grave Human Rights violation? A States claim of Immunity against intervention based on the longstanding Principles of Sovereignty is legitimate to what extent? Whether

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

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.

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 (HI) is nowadays most often understood as “the use of military force by a state or group of states, in the territory of another state, in order to halt or avert the large-scale and severe abuse of human beings, which is usually being committed or sanctioned by the de facto authorities of that state” (ICISS 2001 :34). While most theoretical traditions immediately connect HI to the ethical component and focus on the examination of it (Heinze 2005), Structural Realism (SR) or Neo-Realism as it is also called is definitely not one of those. The groundwork of theory, as seen from the name, being the structure of the international system. Anarchy, the world without any central authority, in which states have to pursue power to protect themselves and ensure survival. Seeing as states play the zero-sum game, they mostly focus on the gains and benefits HI can bring to great powers and how it helps maintain their prospect for survival (Mearsheimer 2013). One could even present it as ethical scepticism, meaning “a doctrine that treats ethical reasoning as irrelevant to politics and IR (Lechner 2010: 437). This essay will examine strengths and weaknesses of SR in explaining the issue of humanitarian

The contemporary era has made conflict an international priority, a world phenomenon, and a global concern for the welfare of all states. Ostensibly, war has existed for quite some time, and the current global hegemony has not conclusively provoked further conflict, but rather, developed mechanisms to protect those affected by the circumstances of an armed conflict. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was devised by the Geneva Conventions, a paramount composition of accords that followed the Second World War in a historical juncture that would persuade political powers of the world that it was necessary to establish a customary structure to the time of war. Predominantly, the conditions of the non-militants, or civilians, as well as the