The Negative Effects Of Humanitarian Intervention

Imagine for a moment what it would be like if the entire population of Sonoma County, California was killed, and twenty years later not many people knew a great deal about it. When over 500,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a great tragedy. However, no one rushed to the country’s aid. Now it is vital that the horrors of the instance that violated the human rights of so many, is not forgotten. Human rights are the universal actions and objects that all people are entitled to because they are human. Human rights have been violated in numerous ways over time, typically as a result of a person in power having their own best interests in mind rather than the peoples´. Various groups, such as Amnesty

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 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.

Over the course of this school year, the resurfacing topic of controversy is morality. Through the memoirs of Elie Wiesel, the darkness of humanity reveals itself. The sad truth this tells is that humans are callous or immoral to fellow man on an individual, national, and even global scale, leading to events that go down in history as atrocities. The international debate this raises, is whether nations, like America, should institute a policy of 'humanitarian military intervention' which is when an independent government fails to deliver human rights to the governed, other countries without permission can intervene with military force. Morality is the focus of the international debate regarding this foreign policy, because that underlying motivation

Should the United Nations intervene in cultural atrocities, or is protecting a State’s autonomy more important? First of all, the United Nations must learn early detection methods, in hopes to stop genocides from even starting! Secondly, if early detection methods fail on occasions, the international community needs to forget about protecting a sovereign State’s autonomy and be ready and willing to step in and help! Intervening may be expensive, and it may require the use of resources, but the lives of innocent civilians are worth more than money or resources can supply. After all, what is worse: a group or individual who commits heinous crimes, or those who choose to ignore them and let the casualties

This paper considers two issues: firstly, human rights in the developing world and secondly Canada’s responsibility of humanitarian assistance. Both issues are of grave importance and are mutually exclusive - as nations lacking strong human rights standards are more likely to require the greatest humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the need for humanitarian assistance will increase as global crises become more frequent, due to climate change insecurity (Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway & Hulme, 2003). The example of climate change will be utilised throughout this paper to explore the disparaging links between climate justice and human rights. In defining humanitarian assistance this paper will take Jamieson’s (2004) definition that humanitarian assistance is a response to crises via support in the short term to overcome disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Whereas, development assistance considers the longer term issues in developing countries. By defining the two main types of assistance this paper will propose that greater investment into development aid may reduce the need for humanitarian aid as nations become more capable to support themselves. The body of this paper will consider key arguments concerning humanitarian assistance and human rights, including: Canadas humanitarian response in the developing world, the increasing need for global crisis response, human rights as a global responsibility and lastly the move from humanitarian to development assistance. In

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?

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

Millions of people are condemned to abuse and oppression because of the repressive policies of their own government’s, or because their governments unwillingness or inability to prevent major human rights violation. The United Nations Security Council is designed to combat this problem by providing the basis for external intervention when internal remedies are ineffective. As can be seen from the analysis of the legal framework pertaining to military intervention, it is not a matter that should be taken lightly and without a thorough consideration of the legal position, the benefits and drawbacks of intervention. However, in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, states need to be willing to intervene. It is important when considering intervention

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.

This paper will explain and critique the position of each group in order to prove that humanitarian intervention should happen.

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

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.

This essay focuses on one of the most controversial topics in international politics. The question of when, if ever, is it acceptable for states to take strict and in particular coercive military action against another state for the purpose of protecting humans at risk. After the end of the cold war, this became a lingering issue in international politics. During this period, there have been many cries for intervention - some of them being answered and some being ignored. But there continues to be a difference of opinion in the international community as to whether there is an imperative requirement of the right to intervention. If so, when should this right be exercised and who should be responsible for carrying out such an important task? These are just some of the questions highlighted in the following argument.