Introduction There are several humanitarian wars took place after the Cold War. It is refers to

Kosovo, a region in Yugoslavia, was one example of America’s success in policing atrocities, acts of aggression and humanitarian crisis created by foreign governments. In 1997,

Espionage has become one of the greatest attacks to any nation’s ability to conduct complex or simple operations in any environment. For many nation’s they must rely on people who tend to fail and become prone to mistakes. Complex ideas and emotions drive people, and these often interfere with a government’s plans. Even worse, as a government attempts to assess each individual holding sensitive positions or knowledge, individuals frequently change and become swayed by new circumstances. The United States (U.S.) learned many of its policies and practices during and after World War II. During, and many years after, the U.S. found itself in an arms race with Russia. During this era, there were no rounds fired at each other, but they used the

The organization has also been working to prevent sexual violence. Unrightfully, rape has been used as a weapon of war. During the genocide of Rwanda, a whopping 250,000 women fell victim to this act. This terrible crime has also been used in the civil war of Sierra Leone, the breakup of Yugoslavia, war in Liberia, and war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sexual violence has also characterized conflicts in many Islamic nations. The UN has helped countries implement laws that criminalize war rape, and prevent perpetrators from punishment exemption. Although the UN has made mistakes in the past, lessons are learned and improvements are made. One such mistake was the massacre of Srebrenica. During the Yugoslavian War, ethnic groups were fighting for independence, and eventually, Yugoslavia broke apart. Today, Yugoslavian land is owned by Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and other Eastern European nations. The town of Srebrenica was meant to be a safe haven for Bosnian Muslims. The UN authorized the town as a safe zone, with 60 Dutch peacekeepers guarding the town. However, peace came to catastrophe in July 1995, and Serbs were coming to invade. To start off the massacre, Serbs shelled the city, and took 30 Dutch peacekeepers hostage. Dutch Colonel Thom Karremans asked the UN for air support. However, the UN did not respond, thinking everything was under control. As the days followed, more men and boys were killed. At the end of the massacre, the Dutch

This continued for 4 years straight and thousands died in the process.Peacekeepers tried to help but couldn’t, due to their light fuel and expired ammunition. In July 1995, Serb forces were led by General Ratko Mladic and he killed 25,000 women and children and his forces went to find where 15,000 Bosniak men who tried to escape went to. Approximately were 3,000 found and then killed but there was still many to find. Later the Serbs forced the peacekeepers to handover their uniforms so that they can trick the men to go to safety but really kill them. At the end of the day 8,000 men and teenage boys were killed. This Genocide is the worst that has ever happened on european soil after the Holocaust. I can compare this to the Holocaust because they went for anyone who wasn’t part of their ethnic group or didn’t believe in them just like the Nazis.The Serbs made concentration camps and did they did mass executions, and later put them in mass graves to bury

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

Despite the high costs of war both in monetary value and in terms of potential life and infrastructure lost states and their actors despite their supposed rationality still seek war at times. Sometimes war is unavoidable given the situations that actors find themselves in. States prior to war will attempt several options such as bargaining and it is that failure in bargaining that tends to result in conflict or war. Especially following the events of the Cold War numerous scholars have given their reasons as to why conflict is sometimes beyond prevention.

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

On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched Operation Allied Force (OAF), by which it violated the territorial integrity and political independence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The justification for the use of force was on humanitarian grounds. NATO claimed that immediate action was necessary to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. General Wesley Clark stated the objective of OAF was to “…coerce change in behaviour or to destroy the means of repression”. Instances of human rights violations are all too common, conversely, or perhaps as a result, cases of humanitarian interventions are scarce. Hence, the scrutiny always associated in analyses of humanitarian interventions. Although international

Humanitarian interventions violate the principle of non-armed intervention provided by the United Nations. Traditionally, Western states are the ones who increasingly use this medium to give legitimacy to a security plan to protect its global economic interests. The fact invoked humanitarian grounds to intervene in domestic affairs of other countries is done to protect economic interests of interveners countries. Paradoxically states most involved are precisely those that contribute more funds to the United Nations for humanitarian action. Western nations have invoked numerous moral reasons born of natural law by which an intervention is justified as such: to penalize the wrong and protect the innocent. As Nardin (P.70) argued: “The tradition of natural law or common morality, sees humanitarian intervention as an expression of the basic moral duty to protect the innocent from the violence.” International organizations based on international law such as the United Nations, the International Red Cross, UNHCR among others, when they intervene in conflicts are always faced with a moral and ethical dilemma because their interests do not coincide with the benefit of the intervenor's countries.

At the end of 1991, a ceasefire agreement was created by US between Serbs and Croats fighting in Croatia. The separation of Bosnia from Yugoslavia was recognized by Europe and US in April 1992. UN then imposed economic sanctions and peacekeeping troops that couldn't fight but only stand there. At the end of 1992, the newly elected Bill Clinton, along with NATO, Serbs withdraw weapons from Sarajevo and stop conflict. Surprisingly, Serbs did this. The US then worked to unite the Bosnians and Croatians. However, Serbs were still persecuting the Muslims. Meanwhile, the UN peacekeepers made Safe Havens where fleeing Bosnians could go. However, since they couldn’t fight, these Safe Havens weren't very safe. The Serbs came to one of them and killed

Albanians are protesting for independence, based on the region's autonomy under Marshal Tito. A Series of Serbian attacks on ethnic Albanians in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province brought swift economic retaliation from five Western powers. Such ancient history would appear to be just that were it not for the fact that Kosovo is the Judea and Samaria of Serbia. Religious passions are a major factor in Serbia's desire to control Kosovo. To maintain control over a majority Albanian population, Milosevic has established a police state. That indifference is gone following a series of brutal raids on Kosovo villages which the Serbs said were carried out in retaliation for acts of "terrorism and secession" by ethnic Albanians. Until the emergence of the KLA and its revolutionary talk of a "liberated territory," the major leader among Albanians in Kosovo was Ibrahim Rugova, a moderate who heads the Democratic League and who is the head of Kosovo's "shadow government." This danger of an expanded war, coupled with the brutality of the recent Serbian police attacks, has prompted Western leaders to move more quickly against Milosevic than they did in 1991. In a 1993 report, Jeremy J. Stone, traveling for the Federation of American Scientists, suggested four options in the Kosovo situation: a partitioning with a special concern to keep the 14th-century battle sites and

Eight hundred thousand Tutsis were killed in just one hundred days, and the world watched some of the most graphic footage seen since the Holocaust. People could not pull away from their television sets, unable to believe it was happening. “Never again,” they had pledged, and yet, here it was in 1994. As the Hutus enacted a massive genocide, attempting to eliminate the Tutsi minority from Rwanda, the world did nothing. The United Nations stalled while the United States refused to have another failure as in Somalia where three American peacekeeping soldiers were dragged through the streets. Belgium was already pulling its peacekeeping troops from the state. The Tutsis’ human rights were clearly being violated. Why did no state intervene and

“The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is the military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. It was the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council.” The air strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil. “The 1999 bombings led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo and the establishment of UNMIK, a U.N. mission in Kosovo.”

The Bosnian War was a brutal and inhumane conflict that featured genocide and the advent of ethnic cleansing and mass rape as instruments of modern warfare. The case study “War in Bosnia” recounts the tragic events of that war. Specifically, the article emphasizes the numerous and systematic atrocities perpetrated by the Serb forces upon the Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilian populations throughout the country during the course of the conflict, specifically emphasizing the genocide the Serbs committed against the Muslim population. The article points out the international outcry that ensued against the Serbs and their genocidal tactics was what spurred the United States to intervene militarily in Bosnia against the Serbs under President Bill Clinton. The article notes that the atrocities and violence did not subside until the NATO bombing campaign weakened the Serbian position in the conflict and forced the Serbian leader Milosevic to enter peace talks.

In recent years, multilateral institutions and governments have devoted increased attention to the challenges of international conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and post-conflict peace-building. However, conflicts continue to emerge and many of them turn violent. These deadly conflicts have led to widespread devastation and regional instabilities, as well as large numbers of refugees. The international community’s instruments that have been designed in the wake of the genocide and atrocities in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, to prevent the outbreak of violent conflict or end fighting have remain unwieldy and, at times, ineffective (Cramer 2006).