Thesis Statement On 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?

A human rights-based approach, however, may backfire. Completely banishing the notion of sovereign states might risk more deaths, a fact which compromises the liberal prospect. The 2011 U.S.-led military intervention in Libya offers an example. The intervention aimed to save lives of peaceful

An example of the relevance of liberalism would be the United Nations, a global organization, which was developed for the intent of maintaining world peace. Anne-Marie Slaughter states that the world will be multilateral in the future because of the UN’s expansion. Liberalists would also say because of institutions such as the UN, states are more concerned with relative gains than absolute gains. Today, in the occurrence of a crisis, states

In conclusion, the relationship between the liberalist theory and the global war on terrorism along with the subsequent Iraq invasion illustrated the importance liberals place on universal interdependence along with the promotion of perpetual peace as a solution to global security and, ideally as it would follow, economic

If a war is to be just then the third condition that must be satisfied is that it must be done with the right intentions. If a nation’s real reason for war is only to further its own interests, or to get back at an enemy, then that war is not considered just. With the just war theory, the only true was to have right intentions is for peace to be the desired outcome. The purpose of humanitarian intervention is to save and protect inferior foreign people, showing that the intentions are right.

Liberalism is wielded by countries as a tool to purse their gain and spread of knowledge. Liberalism has been promoted in, and sometimes imposed on, countries around the world, Sometimes liberal democratic countries have imposed liberalism for national interest, with to protect themselves from possible attack or to protect their economic interests. Sometimes liberalism is imposed for humanitarian reasons for the good of others. Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, is viewed by some people as being in our national interest and by others as humanitarian. Some oppose it and some see it as a just cause. When democratic elections are imposed on a country, they do not always bring equality or stability and can led

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

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.

Sierra Leone had been considered a fragile state even before its civil war from 1991-2002, this is because it had “weak capacity and will to provide security and deliver services to its population” (Pickering, 2009, p20). The decade during the civil war was overwhelmed by huge human rights abuses, lack of coherent governments, weak social security structures and masses of violence (Evoe, 2008, p2).. A number of peace efforts were generated by international institutions, none of which were extensively effective throughout all of Sierra Leone. Despite these difficulties, the intervention in Sierra Leone is considered a noteworthy success for the United Nations peacebuilding mission. The main objective of peacebuilding missions is to ‘rebuild’ failing and weak states (Cubitt, 2013, p91) and to “prevent violence from recurring in countries that are just emerging from civil conflict” (Paris, 2002, p637). The UN mission in Sierra Leone is widely regarded as an example of successful peacebuilding in a war torn country. The mission facilitated a transition from, a failing state to a moderately peaceful state. This mission is held as an example of successful intervention, and is often used as a means to justify the benefits of UN peacebuilding and peacekeeping missions.

With the end of the Cold War Era, humanitarian interventionism became an increasing part of foreign policy in the United States, shaping its interactions with other states; furthermore, it is an issue of controversy and has had mixed results. This paper will examine the way in which the United States responded to two different humanitarian crises in the 1990s, one by intervening and one by ignoring the situation. In the case of Somalia, a country struck by famine, the United States chose to act, due to public opinion, the perceived image of the intervention, and the wishes of then President George H.W. Bush. Contrarily, the genocide in Rwanda failed to receive any intervention from the United States, due to changes in public opinion and

With Liberalism, humanitarian aide is a must—they believe in the importance of helping others, of the world being good and just, and a closeness found just by being a living thing on this earth. With Realism, aide is to be given only if something is received in return—they wish to dominate and be known, to survive in this world. This paper itself was written from a realist point of view, for it is the basis of the natural world…at least when it applies to genocide and the hate that surrounds this place. Much like Realism, Constructivism and Marxism can explain why (or if) they should provide humanitarian aid. In the case of Marxism, aide is to be given if it enhances their economic standing (this can be seen as parallel to realism as it too can increase their dominance), if it allows them to flourish and gain. Constructivism, however, can be split and torn between a side of Liberalism and Realism. Constructivism dictates that if there is a strong relationship between the two actors (i.e. Kantian culture) then aide must be given as everyone has a right to life and a general well-being. If the strong relationship is lacking (i.e. Lockean or Hobbesian culture) then aide will probably be withheld as well-being is generally ignored and, in the most extreme circumstances, no one is trusted (sovereignty isn’t respected). All of these theories can explain the decision to give or forgo aide, allowing many different opinions and views on the

The purpose of intervention should be the protection and promotion of human rights. “Armed interventions have a substantial likelihood of imposing disproportionate risks upon individuals, even when there are severe rights violations within a possible target state. Yet, nonviolent strategies will often be insufficient to stop such violations.” Then, the decision to intervene is dependent on a great number of factors that are taken into account before any action is taken. In spite of that, lives are on danger when these decisions are being discussed. Just as intervention is not justified by any suspicion of violation, it is erroneous to stop any attempt to intervene because of the inexistence of violations of genocidal proportions. If governments

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.

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