The Conflict Of Humanitarian Action

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

To understand the impact of humanitarian crises and how international politics play a role, a common definition of such crises must be understood. In his book “Humanitarian Crises and the International

Today the United States functions in a dangerously unstable world. Proliferation, politically unstable Nations, economic instability and numerous other international issues threaten our nation and its prosperity. Therefore, the United States should protect its own global interests by striving for order and security. The US can do this by maintaining relationships between allied nations, avoid involvement in other nation’s human rights so not to hinder economic growth, and prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons in unstable groups’ hands that can threaten national and international security and stability.

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 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

The humanitarian sectors future depends on if Humanitarian clubs can continue to evolve. Groups that need to continue to evolve are network of states, donors, NGO’s and INGOs. The clubs control many of the resources when it comes to humanitarian services. The humanitarian club members are assigned to build partnerships that are strong with communities and recognize that the system needs to change. There has been a huge push for reform humanitarian services are adapting to the World Humanitarian Summit which will help, improve, and repair the crisis response agenda. The time is expiring and new global powers are trying to adapt and if the fail the consequences could be terrible for humanitarian aid workers and victims who are in disaster situations.

The Global Humanitarian Assistant Report (GHA) (2015) states that in 2014, the Ebola virus in Western Africa, the crisis in Syria, South Sudan and Iraq has severely affected millions of people. GHA (2015) further state that between the year 2013 and 2015 over 58 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to violence or persecution. Natural disaster and Hazards has affected over 107.3 million people. Because of this there has been an increase in Humanitarian aid assistance and hence Humanitarian aid or relief workers have been deployed to the affected areas.

When discussing why states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others, which is best answered as states intervene in the occurrences that are seen as the greatest violations in human rights, while having the main powers decide if intervention will best benefit them. Humanitarian intervention is best defined as “the means to prevent or stop a gross violation of human rights in a state, where such state is either incapable or unwilling to protect its own people, or is actively persecuting them” (Rashid, 2012). Liberalism is the best theory to support my answer because liberalism promotes peace and stability globally. Based off of these goals, the United Nations was founded after World War II. During the 1990’s, also known as the decade

Humanitarian crises are always enormously difficult to handle. Like the current conflict in Syria, there are typically mass killing of civilians, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The United

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.

Military action in Libya was sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows for such intervention in the case of a threat to international peace and security which they have interpreted as including grave threats to civilians. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate.

This paper will examine the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, perpetrated by the self-proclaimed Islamic State. This paper will analyze and discuss the implications that the events in Paris will have on the international community’s course of action on the current turmoil in Syria and Iraq. As a result of this further analysis, this paper argues three main points. First, the severity of the attack will demand a fundamental shift in the level of aggressiveness that Western powers are willing to show against a pseudo-state actor like ISIS. Second, France’s recent invocation of the Mutual Defense clause of the European Union Constitution signals a possible shift in the role of large scale international organizations in their treatment of member states. Finally, this paper will argue that these attacks signal a negative shift in the international debate over resolving the humanitarian crisis in Syria, resulting in stricter immigration policies within Western countries.

There is currently a war going on in Syria, and has been going on for a couple of years now, beginning in March 2011. As a result to this, millions of Syrians are stuck in the warzone, becoming malnourished, abused, ill, and oppressed. Their economy, healthcare, education systems and other organizations are being destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians are being killed, and millions are in need of humanitarian assistance. The biggest dilemma is that roughly half of those who are suffering are children.

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

The principle of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect is rooted in the belief that ought to fulfill certain standards of protection for its own citizens. When that standard is not met or the government itself poses a threat to its own people, foreign nations have a right and obligation to protect those citizens from crimes against humanity. This idea arose in the 1990s (which would later be known as the decade of humanitarian intervention) when the US was leading several humanitarian interventions around the globe, many of which were successful. This principle was solidified into a commitment by all UN member states at the 2005 World Summit. Though there have been many successful interventions rooted in the belief of a responsibility to protect, the overall idea of RtoP itself is not without flaws.