The Importance Of Humanitarian Intervention

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.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

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

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

Often the sentiment in a state is that the first responsibility of your state is to your state. In particular, armed humanitarian intervention would put the lives of a state’s soldiers in danger for another state, which may not even be consenting to the action. Further, the use of violent force for the goal of preserving human right, peace, and stability can be seen as paradoxical. This paradox can be seen in many conflicts which claim to be waging war for the long term goal of peace. There are additional concerns in the “jus post bellum” for armed humanitarian intervention. The intervening country may set up a government that is not representative of the people, using it as an opportunity to exert control over another country rather than protect human rights. Additional critics of the right for humanitarian intervention express realist ideas that ethics is not important in international affairs, or rather against improper use of morality in foreign affairs. A major explanation given by the international community against humanitarian action is the emphasis on maintaining sovereignty. This explanation is especially problematic since human rights should be more valued than upholding the norm of sovereignty, when all other ethical guidelines for intervention

After the end of the Cold War there has been an increase in the use of force for humanitarian purposes around the world in places such as, Liberia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On February 2001, the Foreign Policy Research Institute hosted a major conference on the question of humanitarian intervention and its implications for American foreign policy. The conference focused on examining the recent history of humanitarian intervention and its prospects in the new century (Wheeler, 2000, 128). Thus, this paper is going to review the existing literature of humanitarian intervention. Firstly, it will define the notion of humanitarian interventions and analyze the dilemma between intervention and the concept of sovereignty. Secondly, it will question if the United States has the legitimate right to intervene as a third party responding to humanitarian crises.

The history of humanitarian intervention was born in 1967 in West Africa. The Nigerian province of Biafra was going through a civil war. The separatist biafran rebels were fighting against the Nigerian federal army. The biafran rebels were fighting for a separate state while the other was fighting to keep Nigeria as one. The violence lead to deaths of civilians and this inspired the doctors from aid organizations to come and check on the people of Biafra. The army blocked the roads in the province, and this lead to shortages of food and now the new killer was famine. The famine changed everything as it attracted the world and the international community towards the biafran cause. Images of malnourished kids and starving women captured the world and

With reference to one example of a humanitarian intervention since 1990, assess whether it was ‘humanitarian’.

What comes to mind when you hear a country is going through a humanitarian crisis? Perhaps destruction, genocide, surveillance, propaganda, civilians not having a voice, and much more. This is what happened in the city of Aleppo in Syria. Aleppo was one of the oldest city with marvelous medieval architecture, rich cultural history, and its popularity in tourism. Aleppo was an open museum and a home to two and half million people, but all of that was lost in the Battle of Aleppo. Syria is ruled by the dictator Bashar al-Assad and has been in power for seventeen years. Assad restricted Syrian civilians from freedom of speech and according to CNN “gave the government broad power to detain people for perceived threats to national security” (CNN).

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.

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

One thing that is important to keep in mind is that humanitarian intervention is not the same thing as humanitarian assistance. Where humanitarian assistance does not use force, humanitarian intervention does. There are some key principles that make up the term humanitarian intervention. Those principles state that force is used by the military of a third party to protect citizens in a country, who are in danger or abused, because the state in which they live in is not able to or refuses to do so (Geras 99). Looking through various sources, it is obvious that countries are aware of humanitarian intervention, and its impact. The quote “And in Africa, the African Union, which succeeded the Organization of African Unity (OAU), has institutionalized a “right of humanitarian intervention” in ‘grave circumstances’” (Wiley 90), emphasizes

This statement reflects the challenge that’s been facing the international community for several decades. Indeed, the international community (represented by the United Nations) has legitimized the coercive action against a state and the intervention in another state’s affairs when the state is violating human rights [therefore on behalf of other people/to help people suffering severe harm/to help people whose fundamental rights have been neglected] and when it’s framed by a supranational authority, typically the UN Security Council.