Intervention Based On Humanitarian Ideals

European states ended the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which laid the foundations for a system of independent, competing states. They also mutually recognized their rights to organize their domestic and religious affairs and agreed that political and diplomatic affairs were to be conducted by states acting in their own interests.

The efficiency of humanitarian intervention is normative because of people having different views on the output and the unlikeliness of every one being pleased by the new regime therefore it is very hard to affirm the real results of the intervention. In 2011, a group of countries intervened during the Libyan civil war, which lead to the abolition of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. The Operation Unified Protector by NATO was partly successful because they achieved to kill the dictator on 20th October, but partly ineffective because the standards of living in Libya have not increased and the state is facing a lack of government’s ruling. This case study supports the statement that HI could be an abandoned project as it is not always favourable to everyone.

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

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

Sovereignty is a basic principle that impacts relations between countries and establishes mutual respect of the authority each state has over its territory. The concept of sovereignty and its operation within the international system originated with the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 through a process known as the Peace of Westphalia. Over 194 states were represented by 174 plenipotentiaries during these meetings and the entire process took almost four years. This treaty is largely credited with establishing the modern state system

Chandler argues that the invasion and occupation of Iraq highlighted the dynamic behind the concept of R2P. He states that the R2P that emerged in the period after the Iraq invasion reflected more intensely the crisis that that emerged within the ICISS report giving Western governments some form of authority and confidence. He argues that the ICISS report aimed to restore confidence to the UN however it just made R2P appear not as a ‘non-bureaucratic ’ and a non-legalistic’ justification for intervention. There is currently a focus on 'good governance' as a form of prevention and also on institutional reform to take the emphasis away vast transformations of the potential vision of social, economic and political change. Thus it is seen that, Western powers appear to be weak to influence events. Moreover, any form of responsibility is killed once there is an understanding that these 'mass atrocities' are created under the structure of institutional frameworks. “The blame for recurring crises is located narrowly at the level of post-colonial state societies and political elites, rather than in any policy interventions (intended or unintended) by external actors.” (Chandler: 2009, 30)

In Osiander’s opinion, the Peace of Westphalia simply could not have provided the foundation for international relations because the terms of the two treaties of the Peace concerned only the specific belligerents and their concerns, not the legal aspects that would have provided the foundation. Instead, Osiander argues that the terms, like religious tolerance for example, that scholars like Gross examine, are merely the widely regarded beliefs of the Peace known as the Westphalian Myth: “[The Peace of Westphalia] is silent on the issue of sovereignty…There is nothing in it about the balance of power…it is because of the arbitrary habit of regarding 1648 as a milestone in the evolution of sovereignty that this concept is projected”. Because the Peace, according to Osiander, did not mention sovereignty-related terms, it could not have established sovereignty for modernized Europe, but did establish “a system of mutual relations among autonomous political units”, not based on sovereignty, but the legal system. Osiander concludes that modern day sovereignty is not a result of the Peace of Westphalia, but of the emergence of industrialization that lessened the importance of international factors due to improved independent economies and

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

The significance of the Peace of Westphalia has long been lauded as beginning of international relations as it is recognized today. Many have attributed the popularity of this belief to the article, Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948 by Leo Gross which was published in 1948. It discusses the merits of the agreement in sparking the establishing the modern state system. A more recent piece, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth by Andreas Osiander takes an entirely different approach by attempting to debunk what Peace of Westphalia stands for in the current world. Both articles have strongly argued for their respective views on the issue, however it is clear that when it comes to whether or not the two treaties that make up the Peace of Westphalia actually contribute as much as ???? However it is clear that Osiander is more convincing??? While both articles make strong arguments to convince the reader of their respective views, Osiander employs By

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

This essay focuses on one of the most controversial topics in international politics. The question of when, if ever, is it acceptable for states to take strict and in particular coercive military action against another state for the purpose of protecting humans at risk. After the end of the cold war, this became a lingering issue in international politics. During this period, there have been many cries for intervention - some of them being answered and some being ignored. But there continues to be a difference of opinion in the international community as to whether there is an imperative requirement of the right to intervention. If so, when should this right be exercised and who should be responsible for carrying out such an important task? These are just some of the questions highlighted in the following argument.

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.