The Pros And Cons 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.

The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on

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

Humanitarian action is what the world turns to in case there is a crisis in any part of the world. But as David Rieff suggests in his book, “A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis,” there is a crisis in the humanitarian world and space. He draws from first personal experience in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo to tell how some of the challenges humanitarian organizations face; including their struggle to be neutral and apolitical.

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?

Humanitarian crises and international politics goes hand in hand. One can cause the other, while the only way to fix the other is to rely on politics. This paper will highlight the cause of genocide, violent massacres and crisis, how to solve them, and key roles politicians and nations must take up wholeheartedly in order to make a difference. Personal and political reconciliation must occur in the parties involved ever want to have a mutual co existence.

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

Military intervention is defined as the deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy. For the most part, military intervention is focused on upholding basic human rights throughout the world but, the idea of the military intervention itself is a controversy, there is a constant debate on whether it is good or bad. Many people believe that military intervention does more harm than it does good to all the countries involved and is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, arguing that the government is in place to protect its citizens from violation of their rights and from domestic violence. Which being said is to be upheld by the police force and the military is there to protect American citizens from foreign

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

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.

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

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

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

Genocide is defined by the United Nations as "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." (UN, 1) While there are many sovereign nations engaged in international politics, only a few engaged (or disengaged) in African politics during the Cold War era. Through realism and liberalism the actions of global leaders and members of the United Nations will be explained and their actions defined that led to the crisis of Central Africa from 1960 through 1994 and ending in Rwanda. These global state actors have an obligation to protect human rights throughout the world, but in 1994 allowed 800,000 ethnic Tutsi to be brutally murdered in their homes and in the streets of a place that once used to be safe. This all occurred because a global power struggle was top priority.