International Humanitarian Intervention : The United Nations

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

The article stated that the international community has a duty to protect the vulnerable. International community has a norm to protect civilians, children, adults and religion groups. No one should be left out or target because they are different from others. The article then goes on to say that loyalty is extremely important in human rights.

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

Though containing the word “humanitarian,” this is the normal definition of such intervention. The commitment of any of the parties was questionable. That the intervening party have an “achievable mandate” is another condition, one again, very foggy in 1991. it also explicitly states that “peace is not made overnight” and strongly suggests that any mission must be long term and require outlays of substantial resources. No party at the time was prepared for that, nor would the populations in these areas approve it.

Assessing the most pressing current national security issues for the United States is difficult following the massive transition in political leadership following the 2016 election. Fundamentally, where we observed “No-Drama” Obama adhere to principles of strategic patience and a philosophy of no doing stupid stuff, President Trump seems willing to disrupt recently accepted equations regarding American involvement in deterring Syria’s Assad regime, dissuading the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from furthering its nuclear capacity, and presenting a firmer stance against Iranian influence in the Middle East. Fundamentally, this shift has cause the United States to be less of a steadying and stable actor in the international landscape, and more unpredictable. Simply, President Trump appears more willing to leave all options, including, for example, military intervention in North Korea, on the table, where his predecessor was less overt about such possibilities.

Humanitarian Military Intervention in the recent years has been creating a lot of controversies and debates all over the world. It has become one of the most debated concepts in the field of international relations. To be able to justify the so-called HMIs is a highly problematic issue at hand. Before we go any further into the debate of HMI, let us first try and understand what the concept actually means. One very interesting and exhaustive view (in my personal regard) about the concept of HMI that I came across is found in the book ‘Encyclopedia of Global Justice’. “Humanitarian Military Intervention is the violation of the strict sovereignty of a state, defined as humanitarian by its aim of remedying or preventing human rights violations. The humanitarian aim is necessary for distinguishing the intervention from other various acts of military aggression that are strictly prohibited by international law and convention. Humanitarian military intervention is often understood to constitute a noteworthy application of Just War Theory, and, on many accounts represents an exception to the prohibition on the use of military force in international relations. Within the Just War tradition, humanitarian intervention is distinguished from wars of conquest by its humanitarian aims, and from humanitarian assistance by virtue of forcefully violating state sovereignty.” This definition, in my view, demonstrates the complexity of

I find the cases for humanitarian interventions compelling due to their abundant nature within modern society. However, the problem of the dominantly impure motives weighs heavily on my argument. The necessity of the revision lies largely in the oppressed sects’ inability within the society to resolve the disputes on their own. Without outside intervention, the causalities would often be exponentially higher. The example can be evoked of the Rwandian Genocide and the lack of international intervention. The Hutu majority turned against the Tutsi minority slaughtering three quarters of the Tutsi population. It is not to be forgotten however that thousands of Hutu’s were similarly killed due to their opposition to the genocide. In theory, the results could have been significantly less catastrophic had the international community intervened. The members of the international community however, can be seen as not having anything to benefit through intervening- such as in the case of NATO’s intervention of Kosvo where the US was arguable attempting to spead their sphere of influence- and therefore are hesitate to engage in hositilites. I agree with Walzers revisions to the strict non-interventionist policy the Legalist Paradigm

The post-Cold war world is one that has been riddled with conflict, suffering and war. In the face of such times, the issue of humanitarian intervention and about who, when and how it should be employed, has become hotly debated. While some critics declare this kind of intervention to be a violation of national sovereignty, others believe that relief efforts aimed at ending human suffering are perfectly justifiable. (7) The key question here is, if internal wars cause unacceptable human

To begin it might be best to define what humanitarian intervention is, the definition most recognized being “the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied”. As more and more research was done most of the definitions were close to exact with this one even if they weren’t for it or against it since it is neutral and is the most exact definition of it.

Humanitarian intervention is use of force or other sanctions by one state or group of states against another to prevent or stop the denial of the basic human rights of that states citizens.

Humanitarian intervention termed as the use of military power to intervene on another for the sake of safeguard civilians, individuals, and their human rights. In Rwanda on the commencement of April 1994 and enduring for ninety days, tutus and moderate Hutus turn out to be the target of a genocidal movement that caused in 800,000 deaths. similarly in July 1995,with UN peace keepers present, 8000 Bosnian men and boys were executed in the innocuous harbor of Srebrenica over a few days .In march 1999,the North Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) underway a bombing movement against a former republic of Yugo Slovakia to safeguard the Albanians inhabitants in Kosovo from being ethnically cleansed. Though the examples

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 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.

According The universal declaration of human rights everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. All states have the duty to protect the human rights of citizens as well as anyone living on their soil. As stated before in the UN Human Rights Approaches to Development and Cooperation, the basic human rights principles are: universal, inalienable, and indivisible (Genser, 2014)

The conflict forcefully placed the Sudanese crisis on the world map when genocide tendencies were perceived. It took United Nations about 19 months to intervene in the devastating human tragedy that befell Somalia. Furthermore, the Liberian and the Rwanda’s post-cold war conflicts lingered for sometime before the UN responded. The Sudanese conflicts also experienced the same lag in UN’s response. It is therefore obvious that swift reactions to conflicts have not been attained in UN Peace Support Operations in Africa. This research would be conducted to find answers to the following questions: