American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop …show more content…
Declaring war without sufficient reason is wrong. These reasons include self-defense against an act of aggression, and defense of others against an aggressor nation. In humanitarian intervention, you would be defending another people from an aggressor nation, making it a justifiable act. The second condition is that war must be declared by a proper authority, a representative of a nation; a king for example. Declaring was is a matter for governments, so neither you nor I can declare war. Some circumstances do arise when it is unclear if that authority is representing the people or themselves. For example, a dictator King who rules by fear does not represent his people, meaning that his declaration of war is questionable. For the military intervention to occur, a declaration from the government must be made.
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.
A fourth condition for a just war is that there
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Beginning in Book I Socrates states clearly that injustice causes war and justice causes the opposite, but by Book V he seems to have a completely different perspective on whether war is just or not. His mind apparently begins to change in Book II when he introduces the second class of people, namely the guardians, with the purpose of defending the city. Throughout Books II, IV and V Socrates discusses the topic of war in light of justice and finally concludes that war is the outworking of the perfectly just city.
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as a military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless one is intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.
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
Throughout The Morality of War, Orend argues that there are only two just causes for resorting to war: a war of self-defense and a war of other-defense. With regards to Somalia, the US and its allies justified entering the war based on Orend’s other-defense position. Although Somalia never committed crimes of aggression against another state, arguably, Somalia committed “acts that shock[ed] the moral conscience of mankind” (Orend 91). Walzer states that this is the only time when armed humanitarian intervention is authorized. The only time a state can intervene in a humanitarian scenario, Walzer declares, is when the aggressor state in question is using military force to engage in “wicked and widespread human rights violations” (Orend 91). The death of 300,000 Somalis due to starvation at the hands of struggling power groups is more than enough to justify
According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.
“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper
The theory states that correcting a wrong constitutes a Right Intention, however seeking to gain material benefits does not. Although this sounds perfectly reasonable on paper, any nation going to war must consider what they will gain from the conflict and what they may lose. In the case of the Bosnian War, those fighting against the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia committed by the Serbs surely had the intention of going against the apparent evil of such acts of genocide, yet how could they simply ignore the land and resources which may be gained by defeating the Serbs? Any nation and its leaders will consider what could be gained from a conflict - is there a country in the world that is not directly involved in another nations act of great evil but would step in to put an end to it without considering what they may gain from the war? This brings us back to the notion of subjectivity and the subtle nuances which are rampant in the Just War Theory itself. Of all seven aspects of the Just War Theory, none are exempt from question of who decides if this applies, from which perspective is this being examined, and is there truly any way to completely and objectively determine what may make a war just? In my opinion, there are far too many moving parts of a conflict to say so, and this is (among several other reasons) why the Just War Theory falls short when applied to real wars in modern
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 key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.
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