Nato 's Justification Of The Security Council

The Bosnian, Srebrenica, and Herzegovina land was involved in an ethical war where ethnic cleansing was seen as a way to solidify the breaks in that region (“Bosnian Genocide”). The trigger of this ethnic war was the break-up of Yugoslavia from one country to three (Bosnia, Srebrenica, and Herzegovina) in 1990 (“Bosnian Genocide”). This rupture of Yugoslavia resulted in the massive dispute between Muslims, Serbs, and Croatians (Bennett). Not long after the war began, the Serbs began executing the Bosnian Muslims through ethnic cleansing, in order to fill the fissure that was created in 1990. The mass execution lasted three years and nine months, and did not end until the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervened in 1995 (Bennett); by that time, an unforgettable 70,000 Bosnian citizens were executed by the Serbs (Perl 71). If NATO had intervened sooner, perhaps thousands of lives could have been saved and this haunting genocide may have had less of an impact on the world.

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.

There were many difficulties which arose as there were many questions which occurred such as ‘who has the right to authority?’ to authorize military intervention for humanitarian purposes? (Heywood, 2011) This is usually referred to the UN security council, this emphasises on the power in which the security council holds and how much responsibility they have, to protect and maintain peace and security. Secondly, Kofi Annan tried to reconcile the tension between sovereignty and human rights, by arguing that, in a context of globalization and international cooperation’s, the state should be viewed as ‘the servant of people and vice versa’ (Annan,1999) . Changing attitudes towards the norm are reflected in the growth in the influence of such doctrines of intervention as the responsibility to protect is that there is an onus on the international community to intervene in situations, where the lives of a country’s civilian population are threatened by the actions of government (Guelke, 2012) However, this can be seen as a disadvantages towards ‘responsibility to protect’ as stated above people’s lives and safety are in the hands of governments which in some occasions cannot be good, as not all civilians agree with government verdicts. Finally, Russia is regarded as a weak rival of the west in geo-strategic terms, its capacity to project power remains very limited (Guelke, 2012). Another example includes; Iraq, they do not follow the human right law, which shows that they are in need for protection to prevent waste of supreme court time and funding. Iraq has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, due to lack of human rights, which is defining the lives of civilians within their country. It is evident that there is a significant need for the right to protect in countries such as

With the wartime cooperation between the Soviets and the Western Allies now broken, and the threat of further communist expansion in the very near future, the U.S. and eleven other Western nations banded together on April 4, 1949 and formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The nations that united together with the United States included the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, and Portugal. This organization sought to create a counterbalance against the powerful Soviet armies that had arisen and were placed throughout eastern and central Europe. NATO pledged that an armed attack against any of the participating countries would be considered an attack against all

Lately, globalization has created tendency including governance. Thereby, many states have authorized international institution to intervene and mediate conflicts between global sides so as to preserve human rights and protect innocent people. However, we occasionally notice that it is not always the case as it was pretended to be. For instance, it is possible and true that such organizations can fail to protect human life, even on purpose. United Nation Security Council is entitled to maintain human rights in the global scale and thus it must intervene into conflicts which comprise threat to innocent civil people. Nevertheless, the circumstance of the Kosovo war allows us to think about and even question the legitimacy of this institution.

The 1999 Kosovan War is a controversial event, usually used as a shining example of when humanitarian intervention has worked; unfortunately, when examined, it is unclear whether the international campaign for peace was an actual success or not. NATO justified their involvement by labelling Kosovo a ‘humanitarian war’ after diplomatic negotiations ground to a halt in March 1999 (Wood, 2007). A wide range of sources supported the war in Kosovo, such as David Clark in 2009, with ‘Every member of NATO, every EU country, and most of Yugoslavia's neighbours, supported military action’ (Clark, 2009). Leaders from the US and the UK respectively also stated ‘upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace’ (Clinton, 1999), and ‘to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo’ (Blair, 1999). However, it was not only ambassadors and high-profile politicians that took this stance; scholars and intellectuals were also vocal about their support for the war (Mellon, 2001). This implies that not only did the foreign western powers believe that a

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the relevance of Just War Tradition (JWT) in contemporary warfare. It will do so through critical analysis of the condition of Just ad Bellum (JAB) because arguably if one carefully considers the moral conditions that make going to war justifiable then the same cautious, moral assumptions apply in Jus in Bello. Firstly it will briefly discuss the history of JWT and thusly the inherent problems within JAB applied in the contemporary world. Secondly it will discuss the principles within JAB and the use of these in the decision to invade Iraq. Finally, the usefulness and relevance of JWT as a framework for the application of Jus in Bello is examined, or whether militarized masculinity has prevailed. Therefore it will argue that JWT is relevant to contemporary warfare only when applied as a moral framework in the international community. It should not be used as a tick list of conditions for states to justify going to war.

Humanitarian Intervention has been a topic of controversy especially in the last 100 years where the need for intervention has grown. The debate primarily being about whether or not humanitarian intervention is legal and what effect it has on a country’s sovereignty.After much research on this topic a conclusion was drawn that Humanitarian Intervention is legal, not meaning whether it was ethical or the right thing to do, but legally correct IF and only when it follows the guidelines set by the UN security council.

Although wars and military interventions are part of global reality, the involvement of International Organizations in these types of actions have changed and evolved: the military intervention model has shifted into a multifaceted repertoire of actions where force is one component among many others. Since 1990s, the range of coercive actions taken by the SC has been enhanced by combining sanctions and preventive measures with military interventions. Certainly, under the Chapter VII of the UN Charter are contemplated the coercive measures that the Council can authorize in order to restore peace in any given situation, including sanctions and the use of force.

The bombing of Kosovo by NATO forces may finally come to an end. While the excuses for bombing the troubled region have been challenged, for the most part the world concurs that the atrocities gong on in that nation warranted international action. In any event, the bombing did start and it continues, despite the accidental hits on pedestrian villages and buildings which were not targets in the first place. They have been explained away as unavoidable during such a mission.

In the essay, Herd and Tracy examine a series of issues in the transition of the Bosnian military. Among these issues are: how can democratic civilian control of the armed forces best be advanced in Bosnia; does the lack of sovereignty preclude entity authorities from addressing the first generation agenda in which state institutions are developed, or does the creation of these institutions constitute an important prerequisite for regaining independent statehood; might a linear sequence of gradual advancement towards democratic control be reversed; and could developing state capacity pave the way for creating pan-entity institutions and a stable state that could survive without foreign assistance, direction, and control? He outlines these assertions against the backdrop of the transition of Bosnian protectorate status from the UN to the EU. A protectorate nominally retains its sovereignty, and its territory remains distinct from that of the protector. The protector is usually a multinational organization, the United Nations or a group of lead states, which creates a “transitional political authority,” “interim international administration,” or “complex peace operation.” Within this transitional administration, national and international policy makers formulate policy, the exercise of which depends on the cooperation and coordination of military, political, administrative, and nongovernmental organizations. The ultimate

In equating the conditions for the internationalization of an internal armed conflict with the conditions under which irregulars will be considered lawful combatants, the ICTY pointlessly forces a considerable narrowing of the class of protected combatants in international armed conflict. It confuses the application of common articles 13(2)/13(2)/4(A)(2), defining lawful combatants, with the application of common Article 2, defining an international armed conflict, and Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, Article 29 of the Fourth Convention and Article 91 of Protocol I, on a state's responsibility for violations of humanitarian law (Greenwood, 2006). Locked in the logic of its discussion of the internationalization of conflicts, the ICTY seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the situation most clearly envisaged by common Articles 13(2)/13(2)/4(A)(2) was that of an existing international armed conflict in which irregulars take up arms, on the model of partisan action during the Second World War (Blakesley, 2008). In presenting the rationale for that provision as that of the responsibility of the state for acts of 'its' irregulars, the Appeals Chamber overlooks the fact that humanitarian law creates obligations not only for states but also for individuals, and that state responsibility plays a role clearly secondary to that of individual

In the following essay I will discuss aspects of international relations relating to humanitarian intervention and how they affect a nation’s responsibilities in the international arena. I will be drawing parallels to historical examples of intervention and to recent world events. I will inspect the classical realist notion of non-intervention and sovereignty and another newer line of thought, more adapted to the modern system. What I hope to bring forth in this paper is a clearer understanding of the situation and the responsibilities of the actors in current international relations in regard to humanitarian rights and intervention.

“The international community has a responsibility to protect citizens against the gross human rights abuses of their states.” This statement leads into the discussion of the two main doctrines that relate to human rights violations, the first being ‘humanitarian intervention’ which has existed for many centuries, and places emphasis on the powers of state having the duty to protect its citizens, and if this is ignored, the international community has rights to step in. Despite the fact that, in theory, this intervention doctrine has many flaws starting with the failures seen in crisis areas such as Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo and the debate on whether it compromises a state’s sovereignty. These faults led to the creation of the newer Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which, in its own capacity, has many faults and failures, but has seen some small victories in region such as Libya and Syria in recent years.

This topic is of significance because the humanitarian intervention in Timor-Leste is regarded as a prime example of how the use of force by the international community can lead to peace in a country. In the Timor-Leste case the theory of humanitarian intervention is put into practice. As the peacekeeping forces helped the self-determination efforts by the East-Timorese by rapidly helping to quell the violence, and control the civil unrest after the referendum. The humanitarian intervention in Timor-Leste under the aegis of Australia is a worthy case study of a multinational intervention. It is of great relevance for students of international relations to assess the reasons for the intervention and also it is important to explore its short and long term effects.