Is Humanitarian Military Intervention ( Hmi ) Legitimate?

Walzer, still maintaining a strict principle of non-interference like his fellow communitarian thinkers, nonetheless leaves room for nuance in his work and distinguishes between just and unjust wars as a means of preventing human suffering. In Just and Unjust Wars, he details three circumstances in which sovereignty may justifiably be overlooked; his rules of disregard: (I) during times of civil war in which there is already a clear victor, (II) counter-interventionism to balance the influence of another foreign state actor, (III) and in times of mass killings and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the the state. In writing for Dissent, Walzer in fact agrees with the notion that such intervention has just cause, but maintains that the conflict itself is nonetheless still unjust as he foresees no “reasonable prospect of success” or “any vision of what a morally just end would look like.” Under the principles of just war theory, it would be unethical to commit military force to a conflict that cannot reach a just end. As Walzer writes, “Suppose that ISIS is defeated, what then? Are the Sunni Muslims in the caliphate to be returned to Shiite rule in Iraq and Alawite rule in Syria? That isn’t a prospect likely to inspire any of our Sunni

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.

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

If a war is to be just then the third condition that must be satisfied is that it must be done with the right intentions. If a nation’s real reason for war is only to further its own interests, or to get back at an enemy, then that war is not considered just. With the just war theory, the only true was to have right intentions is for peace to be the desired outcome. The purpose of humanitarian intervention is to save and protect inferior foreign people, showing that the intentions are right.

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

Imagine you are a citizen in a small country on the persian gulf. All of the sudden you see smoke clouds instantly form on your invaders as you hear a loud BOOM! You rush into your home full of fear. A month later, soldiers come and destroy nearby patrol camps of the country nearby who invaded and annexed your country. That is what happened in Operation: Desert Storm in the eyes of the people of Kuwait. This event shows Justice is a valuable value. If America and the U.N.(United Nations) hadn’t helped Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi invasion would be unjustified because the reasons for war were small disputes between Kuwait and Iraq. Also Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries might have been invaded and then annexed into part of Iraq, which

When a country encounters a catastrophic situation where human rights are being violated, it is the state’s responsibility to protect its nation. Frequently state’s shift from humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect as a solution to human rights violations. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a states’s use of “military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.”1 In order for a state to successfully protect, according to Anne Orford in the article Lawful Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, they must “prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (pg 248, Orford) A state is responsible for protecting its population, if they fail to do so the responsibility and authority to do so shifts to the international community.

The Iraq War was not a humanitarian intervention, but a humanitarian war. Humanitarian invention mainly consists of threats, and the United States made the decision to physically intervene in Iraq’s affairs. The United States main reason to go to war with Iraq was not motivated by humanitarian needs. Bush and his administration made the decision to declare war on Iraq for the sole purpose of preventing the weapons

The war in Syria has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, as well as the displacement, of just as many refugees who have fled the country. The regime of Bashar Al-Assad, reportedly deployed chemical agents against innocent Syrian people. President Obama went on record, saying that Assad should not cross the “thin red line” (Filkins, 2013). Many interpret this statement from the president to be a threat of war against Syria. Some are actually arguing the ethics of war in this case. During a panel discussion between theologians and policy makers on what makes for a “Just war”, Stanley Hauerwas, Professor emeritus of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School explained that the idea of a “Just war” consists of a discourse which requires thorough diplomatic argument that exhausts all nonviolent efforts before military intervention can ever be considered (Shimron, 2013).

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

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties

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

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