The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Interventions

Good Essays
After the cold war humanitarian interventions has increased and since then they are more important when conducting peace operations. (Baylis, 2016, 266) Today there’s an ongoing debate on when to use military force and for what purpose. After the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo 1999 that was conducted without a mandate from the UN security council, Kofi Annan former Un security general subsidised to the debate on when to use military force. Humanitarian interventions challenges states sovereignty, when protecting civilians from harm conducted by their own state. According to a humanitarian perspective states have a responsibility to protect civilians in order to maintain justice. (Seybolt, 2007, 1) This paper will therefore examine how the use of military force can be successful or unsuccessful, by presenting a qualitative comparative case study of the humanitarian military interventions in Kosovo and Libya. Leading
…show more content…
When UN gives a mandate to intervene it’s the UN security council that decides the aim of the intervention. In contrast, when lacking authorisation from the UN security council, it’s the conducting national governments that decide the aim of the intervention. Because of the complexity of humanitarian interventions, mandate from the UN may also sometimes be unclear. Today interventions also include long-term aims that are not military, like implementing peace and stability in the region post-war. A task that will have an effect on the long-term effectiveness of the military humanitarian intervention. (Collins, 2016, 275)
The effectiveness and susses of an intervention can be measured in two ways:
1. Amount of saved lives, this is the short-term goal.
2. Peace and stability in the region after the intervention, this is the long-term goal. (Seybolt, 2007)

Get Access