In “On The American Indians” Vitoria Argues That There

[2] When determining US policy, diplomatic and economic tools of statecraft should be more readily deployed than military intervention for the purpose of genocide prevention and mitigation. As interventionist Samantha Power notes in her book, A Problem From Hell, “[t]he United States should not frame its policy options in terms of doing nothing or unilaterally sending in the marines.” The period of time pre-genocide, which may be characterized by internal unrest or civil war, is a key period of time for U.S. policymakers interested in preserving human life and a nation’s stability. If policymakers fear the development of genocide, they can take steps such as threatening legal consequences, enacting economic sanctions, or “calling on countries aligned with perpetrators to ask them to use their influence.” All of these and similar options are far less risky to the U.S. than a military intervention and can be readily applied in order to prevent violence escalating into genocide or in the case of a suspected, but unconfirmed, genocide.

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

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

For many years people have argued whether or not the U.S. should intervene in situations where people are suffering. Some people say we should be cautious of intervening in foreign countries. While some people say intervention could help change the world. After reading multiple sources, it is evident that the U.S. should intervene in situations where people in other countries are suffering, even if it means going to war. The U.S. should intervene in these situations because it can help influence our principles of democracy and it will overall help all of humanity.

Haiti is undoubtedly in a position needing humanitarian intervention from elites in the international community. Humanitarian intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states’ strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives. For my purposes I will examine Haiti’s economic and political suffering in response to humanitarian intervention led by the United States both before and after the earthquake.

For example the state articulates humanitarianism as its ends that are interpolated by the subject, which not only functions to justifies or pacifies them but even patronizes the public consciousness towards supporting the belligerency committed in the name of restoring peace or bringing western order to the backward or radical oriental barbarous. Intriguingly Meister claims, the Human Rights Discourse promises to extinguish evil and violence and repress anxiety but in such, feeds of compassion which is “both an affective symptom of such repressed anxieties and a mechanism of their repression through distancing in space and time” (Meister 2011 pg. 222). But yet another contradiction of humanitarianism lies at the fact, as Asad says, that its discourse, which is focuses on the alleviation of unnecessary suffering rest not only on the assumption of constitutes what is unnecessary, but also on what subjectively, quantitatively, and qualitatively constitutes suffering. Commonly this presupposed goodness (the antagonism of evil) is transmuted to sound rational and is then amalgamated further by the civil subject with a notion of truth, truth that is, in the morality of the violent

Though much of the blame is geared towards the U.S. for not intervening, there are a number of different countries that had the financial and military capability of intervening. However, more intriguingly, one must question whether nations had a moral obligation to intervene and consequently, be

Humanitarian intervention was by no means a new topic—its rhetoric has been around since the mid 1800s. However, in trying to codify the “right to intervene” there was a controversial

Questions remain on humanitarian intervention and what the international community should do. The remains of colonialism are a great cause for the ethnic wars that occur today, should it be the West to fix its mistake or would this been seen again as an act of colonialist power? The

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

I was born and grew up in Vietnam. I came to understand American Indian first in middle school through the history class. I was taught about America history through the general lessons, so my memory about American Indians is not much. I thought that they had the darken skins, painted bodies. In addition, they communicated with each other in their own language; they lived by hunting and farming. Moreover, American Indians were known as aboriginal people and they divided into many tribes with different races.

Humanitarian intervention can come in one of two different variations dependent on the case at hand. To put humanitarian intervention into a basic definition, it is “An armed intervention in a state, without that state’s consent, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Segen). Intervention can be

In this essay, I will focus on cases were the United States failed to use military reinforcement against certain groups or countries and their approach lead to many foreign lives lost but spared more American lives by not intervening. There are a lot of variables to consider under the circumstance’s which it is or is not legitimate to use military force against another group or country?

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