U.s. Military Intervention Model

For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq.

One of the largest decisions that the United States has faced under President Obama's reign has been what to do about the apparent and impending threat of the Islamic Nation. In fact many view many of the Islamic States actions as intentionally manipulated military strike aimed at provoking the United States into intervening Middle Eastern affairs. Their message is blatantly apparent through the strategic military strike upon the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, thus forcing the United States into defending their alliance with the Kurdistan nation. This strategic chess move has great advantages towards in a variety of circumstances for the Islamic Nation because any other decision other than military intervention would result in the advancement

This briefing will address the necessities of United Nations to pressure the Democratic People of the Republic Korea, also known as North Korea, by adding sanction to the country. As a hegemonic state, the United States is a significant state to play a role as the leader to enforce DPRK to withdraw itself from the threat of the global security and morality. DPRK had broken many regulations of the UN treaties on militarization, nuclear activities, and violation of human rights. Although the US is one the countries that has the most stock of nuclear weapons , it is aware of its destructiveness and vulnerability more than any country that hold nuclear weapons today. After continuous negotiations to suspend its conductivity of nuclear activities, DPRK had repeatedly engaged and disengaged its pursuit for a nuclear reform. Should the U.S. violate DPRK sovereignty and prioritize world peace and order? As an established great militarily powerful state, the United States must persuade the UN to keep adding sanctions against the DPRK.

The question of when military intervention is appropriate is a question that has been asked since after the Cold War U.S. security policy was created. The national consensus is that the military cannot and should not become a police force for the world. There is usually not a reason to intervene to save lives in most of the civil conflicts seen today. The rate and scale of the killings are usually too low to justify military intervention. This intervention is expensive and dangerous. In 1994, the U.S. intervened in Rwanda in forcible humanitarian intervention. In that situation it was possible to save hundreds of thousands of defenseless people using a modest sized international force.

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

Redefine the importance of economic sanctions and collective diplomacy of UN and regional organisations : Targeted sanctions to deter or end violence, expert panels to monitor the effectiveness of targeted sanctions on peace spoilers, and an increase in the use of special envoys and special representatives to the secretary-general. Actively support EU, AU , OAS, ASEAN in promoting regional peace Although conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan consumed the majority of international attention and resources over the past decade, there has been success involving multilateral conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and peace-building

This essay seeks to analyse the justiciability of military force under the Security Council Resolution in two different circumstances which will be seen under part (i) and part (ii) below.

First, while understanding that R2P is a broad framework with preventive and reactive measures, military intervention can only be allowed when the State has manifestly failed to protect its populations and when peaceful means have proven to be inadequate. Second, intervention under the R2P must specifically protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Third, as agreed to in 2005, R2P legitimizes the use of force only if it is employed collectively through the UN Security

In mid-September of this year, a military coup was launched in Burkina Faso by members of a presidential guard unit in support of former President Blaise Campaore. Campaore enjoyed 27 years of rule as the nation’s president before being peacefully removed from office (Vogt and Hinshaw). The coup lasted about a week and was met with significant public disapproval; protests and violence erupted in the nation’s capital, Ouagadougou. France and the UN, as well as the United States all weighed in on the situation, calling for an end to the coup which endangered democratic elections planned for October 11 (Vogt and Hinshaw). Ultimately, pressures by protestors and the military put an end to the coup and interim President Michel Kafando was put back in office. Presidential and legislative elections have been rescheduled for

This therefore brings us to really examine whether it is lawful for a state to use force to protect its citizens from threats such as terrorism. We then examine the laws that have been put in place by international organizational bodies such as the United Nations (UN).

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

The main limitation of this article is that it was unable to provide a sound reason of how a UN resolution would have transformed the situation as long as military means are not incorporated. Nonetheless, this article’s argument is useful as supplementary information for my research essay since it confirms how significant the role of state’s strategic and geopolitical position play when it comes to deciding whether to intervene or not.

When peaceful means of a nation’s government fails to put a halt to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass violation or has been proven inadequate, the UN Security Council has the right to collectively take action.

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an