The Case Of Kosovo And Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention

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 United nations refused to intervene during the genocide but instead provided humanitarian aid. As time went on they established six “safe area.” These efforts failed because the U.N. was not prepared or didn’t have the correct resources. The hostile situation went on for over four years. In the beginning of the Bosnian War, U.N. did nothing to stop mass executions, concentration camps, rape and sexual violence, and forced displacement. Again, their role was to show a presence, give assistance when needed and be

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.

NATO has impacted human rights around the world by enforcing existing laws, forging alliances between countries, and being a trailblazer in protecting human rights. During the Libyan Civil War of 2011, protestors that wanted democracy were brutally subdued and slaughtered by the special forces of the Libyan government (Haglund). Since they are the ones perpetrating the atrocities, it is natural that they would not want the international community to interfere. However, NATO successfully invoked the Responsibility to Protect, which is an idea adopted by the UN in 2005 that when a country is either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or in this case, crimes against humanity, then others can step

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.

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,

Nobody chose for it to come to this point, yes there could have been better ways to deal with the disagreement or there were ways to end the genocide before the Bosnians had to rise above. It wasn't fair that the Bosnians just wanted power in their country but they could have confronted the subject differently than just trying to overthrow the already set people in charge. Everyone likes power, but when is it enough to where you should give it up or you have gone too far. If you believe that the way to deal with disagreements is to turn to genocide you shouldn't be in charge at that point you’re over using your power for evil things. In my opinion and beliefs I think that the Bosnians could have waited a little bit to demand power because the cold war. The Serbians could have also given up power because the economy wasn't that good for them and they were just in the cold war which made the Bosnians angered because the Serbians got them in the cold war. It doesn't do much justice for the Serbians saying as they got them involved in the cold war, refused to give up after power, and the genocide was began against the Bosnians. Not only were the Bosnians killed but they were beat, killed, raped and humiliated. They didn't always do a “quick death” they wanted the Bosnians suffering to last (Bosnian Genocide). We notice the genocide but we

The preface begins with the author recalling an unfortunate event relating to genocide. In 1995, Bosnian Serbs annihilated Sarajevo by volumes of shells and other bombardments. As a result, the United States and NATO demanded an end to this atrocity; the Serbs, fearful of the contesters ceased. In a state of liberty, children began to spend most of their time outside playing. Months later, the Clinton administration decided to withdraw support from the situation, hoping that the situation would end itself.

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

In 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina had one the biggest genocide to come after WWII, in turn killing over 800,000 civilians. The war consisted of two factions, the Croats and Serbs, both wanting territory in Bosnia. Soon Radovan Karadžić, former Bosnian Serb president, created a special army to support the Serbs, soon the Serbs started the new policy for “ethnic cleansing” many areas of non-Serb. For it was later that it was to be decided that is was complete and utter genocide towards the innocent.

In the summer of 1996, hints of violence began to arise from Europe. This time, however, it was not from Bosnia or Russia, but Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, President Slobodan Milosevic was leading an all-out attack on the ethnic Albanians of the country. Rumors of ethnic cleansing and genocide began to grow as the Serbians sought to drive all Albanians out of their country. By 1998, a full-scale war had erupted between the Albanians and the Serbians as both fought for autonomy of one tiny piece of land: Kosovo. When NATO finally intervened, press coverage began to intensify. NATO entered the war on the side of the Albanians, and as a result press coverage immediately shifted to support this cause. In order to make the conflict

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.

Known as Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II, the Yugoslav Wars (also known as the Wars of Yugoslav Succession, the Yugoslav Civil War, or the War in the Balkans) were a series of wars fought in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Though the entire conflict can be divided up into four distinct wars, they are related due to their common origin and the presence of the same ethnoreligious groups in the multiple wars. These wars have become notorious due to the atrocious war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all sides.

The land of Kosovo has been plagued with tension for hundreds of years being claimed by several surrounding countries. The two biggest contenders, Albanians in Kosovo and Serbia have been fighting for the land, which culminated in a full war from 1998-1999. The war brought international attention to the war crimes committed by both sides, and proved that the two countries had years to go before coming to a solution. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) led by Kosovo Albanians, and the Serbian militia led by President Slobodan Milošević committed heinous crimes against their enemies. Crimes range from ethnic cleansing to rape and destruction of whole villages. The violence created a serious refugee problem that is still relevant today.

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