International And International Law And Policy

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

The parties involved in many civil wars are often not just limited to the country in which the war is actually taking place. Often, other countries will give aid to one side of the conflict or even involve their own military forces. Recent examples of such occurrences include Russian, American, and Turkish involvement in the present Syrian Civil War and the NATO bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. These countries expend massive amounts of resources and lose great numbers of troops in these conflicts often to uncertain ends. This begs the question: Why do foreign powers involve themselves in the civil wars of other countries? It is possible that such interventions occur because the intervening party believes that they could make strategic gains by doing so. Another theory is that countries intervene when they feel that there is a moral obligation to get involved in the conflict (Kim 2012, 19). However, even when circumstances seem to be in favor of a foreign power intervening, they do not involve themselves. This paper will test these hypotheses by examining the intervention by the United States and Russia primarily in the current Syrian Civil War and attempt to discern their motives for

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have represented the end of the warfare system built in the aftermath of the Second World War. On the other hand, the tough US reaction culminated in the creation of a new order shaped by the terrorist threat and characterized by the so-called “war on terror”: an unprecedented way of doing politics and conducing conflicts. This scenario brought new challenges and perils to the legal framework aimed at regulating the relationships within international actors: international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law. New tendencies on behalf of States jeopardize the international system as a whole.

The purpose of intervention should be the protection and promotion of human rights. “Armed interventions have a substantial likelihood of imposing disproportionate risks upon individuals, even when there are severe rights violations within a possible target state. Yet, nonviolent strategies will often be insufficient to stop such violations.” Then, the decision to intervene is dependent on a great number of factors that are taken into account before any action is taken. In spite of that, lives are on danger when these decisions are being discussed. Just as intervention is not justified by any suspicion of violation, it is erroneous to stop any attempt to intervene because of the inexistence of violations of genocidal proportions. If governments

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.

Often the sentiment in a state is that the first responsibility of your state is to your state. In particular, armed humanitarian intervention would put the lives of a state’s soldiers in danger for another state, which may not even be consenting to the action. Further, the use of violent force for the goal of preserving human right, peace, and stability can be seen as paradoxical. This paradox can be seen in many conflicts which claim to be waging war for the long term goal of peace. There are additional concerns in the “jus post bellum” for armed humanitarian intervention. The intervening country may set up a government that is not representative of the people, using it as an opportunity to exert control over another country rather than protect human rights. Additional critics of the right for humanitarian intervention express realist ideas that ethics is not important in international affairs, or rather against improper use of morality in foreign affairs. A major explanation given by the international community against humanitarian action is the emphasis on maintaining sovereignty. This explanation is especially problematic since human rights should be more valued than upholding the norm of sovereignty, when all other ethical guidelines for intervention

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.

Millions of people are condemned to abuse and oppression because of the repressive policies of their own government’s, or because their governments unwillingness or inability to prevent major human rights violation. The United Nations Security Council is designed to combat this problem by providing the basis for external intervention when internal remedies are ineffective. As can be seen from the analysis of the legal framework pertaining to military intervention, it is not a matter that should be taken lightly and without a thorough consideration of the legal position, the benefits and drawbacks of intervention. However, in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, states need to be willing to intervene. It is important when considering intervention

The essay will firstly discuss the Security Council’s (SC) role in maintaining international peace and security through Article 2(4) and whether terrorism allows for the use of force under self-defence. It will then explain how the use of force against a State can be balanced with the violation of a State 's territorial integrity through customary law elements. The other sources of international law that influence the justiciability of force against terrorism include jus cogens and

In this essay, my arguments are not entirely against the use of military force rather how the force actually is applied. Based on numbers of issues where international community has failed to address genuine humanitarian crisis and how some states have manipulated the norm and used other tools to promote and justify their interest related interventions defying the law and limiting UN as just an institution without any significant power.

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 notion of intervention based on humanitarian ideals is not a novel concept in the realm of international relations. Even Hitler maintained that his 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia was conducted to protect the lives of those Czechoslovaks endangered by their government (Bellamy, 2009). However, the doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has attracted significant mention in political discourse and academia since the end of the cold war – not least with the surfacing of state-sponsored violence during the ‘Arab Spring’. This essay, with the help of relevant examples – such as Kosovo, Darfur, Libya and Syria – will aim to debate the notion that R2P will only be utilised when it is in the interests of major powers.

Humanitarian intervention is certainly among the most debated topics of recent years in stately, organizational, and academic forums. The focal point of the controversy is the conflict between traditional ethics and practices of state sovereignty and newly accepted norms on the use of force for humanitarian resolutions. Despite the political and social disagreements between a given set of nation states, humanitarian intervention is now an adopted, international practice that demands intervention anytime a high percentage of the population (of any state) is at risk or under threat from their own authorities or those of another state.

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.

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