The Issue Of 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.

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?

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

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.

Section one deals with the debates that surround the issues of humanitarian intervention and just war theory on the basis of international scale. One article by Holzgrefe is completely focused on the debate, stating the many ethical theories of many different theorists: from "utilitarianism; natural law; social contractrianism; communitarianism; and legal postivism" (7). Holzgrefe goes on to define what each ethical theorist is and their understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention. However, there is the idea of when it is right to intervene and when intervention is unfavorable. The most interesting part was the third section of the article.

Humanitarian intervention was by no means a new topic—its rhetoric has been around since the mid 1800s. However, in trying to codify the “right to intervene” there was a controversial

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

Humanitarian effort is an interesting topic to me. While reading about these efforts it is clear that people are at the heart of such efforts. Humanitarian efforts should be guided by goals such as; humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality. These important principles should be at the core to humanitarian work. It is critical to distinguish humanitarian action from other forms of activities. Humanitarian Laws, International Human Rights Law, and International Refugee Laws provides the frame work for fundamental legal standards relating to the protection of groups and individuals, as well as to the nature of the assistance being provided. In thinking about this topic along with the first of two questions needed to complete this assignment, I researched International Law as a Basis for Humanitarian Intervention. I discovered that there is no state right to humanitarian interventions. Furthermore, I learned that no government has the right to violate the territorial integrity and political independence of another country, locality or state under any circumstance. In my own opinion basic human rights have to be met no matter the circumstance.

In this paper, I will argue that Luban’s critique of Walzer conception of legitimacy is misguided. I will first present Walzer’s argument for interventions using the “legalist paradigm,” in particular his conception of self-determination and how the principle of non-intervention may be set aside in exceptional circumstances. I will then present Luban’s critique of Walzer and his argument for developing an account of Just War directly in terms of human rights, before concluding with my own critique of Luban’s argument.

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.

The United Nations is an international organization that fights for world peace, and strives to control international law, international security, economic development, social progress, and human rights. In the United Nation’s preamble, it states the organization is “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” and “…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” However, the U.N. can often be ineffective and it has been an ongoing debate between the world’s leaders whether or not intervention is justified when inhumane acts are committed in foreign lands. Too many human beings have been victims of violence, rape and/or

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

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

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

For instance, in the last year of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century, a commitment made between states to respect and maintain the non-intervention rules were seen as an essential feature for preserving the international society of states order. Still, in the late twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, states have started to give more priority on the rules concerning justice and human rights. Therefore, according to Wheeler (2000) this shift introduces the concept of the ‘supreme humanitarian emergency’ which refers to the circumstances when the states will ignore the non-intervention rules, in order to accord more attention to the human rights of citizens of that particular country.