What Is Civil Conflict Intervention? Essay

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

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.

Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis of modern time. The “Syrian Civil war Began in March of 2011, between rebel brigades and government force; economy and infrastructure is destroyed” (Library, 2016). “Divisions between secular and religious fighters, and between ethnic groups, continue to complicate the politics of the conflict” (Corps, 2016). Additionally, the Syrian civil war has taken a significant

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.

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

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

A civil war involves the conflict between different groups in the same state. The main objectives of the civil war are the intention of one group to exercise control over the other group or to need to amend some government policies, which are unfavorable to them. Each occurrence of civil war is associated with a particular commander who is responsible for initiating the war.

The Civil War, in U.S. history, was a conflict that pitted the Northern states of the American Union against the Southern states. The war raged for 4 years (1861-65) and was marked by some of the fiercest military campaigns of modern history. Large armies were involved in large movements, and entire populations were engaged in supporting the war efforts of both sides. The war had international impact, not only because of the growing international stature of the United States, but also because war threatened world access to the South's cotton. Britain and France had particular interest in the war's outcome, but other nations were also affected by it.

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

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

The parties involved in many civil wars are often not just limited to the country in which the war is actually taking place. Often, other countries will give aid to one side of the conflict or even involve their own military forces. Recent examples of such occurrences include Russian, American, and Turkish involvement in the present Syrian Civil War and the NATO bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. These countries expend massive amounts of resources and lose great numbers of troops in these conflicts often to uncertain ends. This begs the question: Why do foreign powers involve themselves in the civil wars of other countries? It is possible that such interventions occur because the intervening party believes that they could make strategic gains by doing so. Another theory is that countries intervene when they feel that there is a moral obligation to get involved in the conflict (Kim 2012, 19). However, even when circumstances seem to be in favor of a foreign power intervening, they do not involve themselves. This paper will test these hypotheses by examining the intervention by the United States and Russia primarily in the current Syrian Civil War and attempt to discern their motives for

Initially, one should look at the country of origin in which a civil war plays out, in this instance, Syria. Syria was thrown into a state of turmoil after the government reportedly arrested and tortured teenagers who had painted revolutionary slogans on their school’s walls. This caused massive rallies to take place, in which government soldiers fired upon protestors, killing several. As a result, the protestors took up arms of their own and proceeded to fight back against the governmental forces in an attempt to end President Assad’s regime. This then drew up the battle lines; on one side was President Assad and his

This essay analyses the reasoning behind the difficulty of solving intra-state conflicts. First, it examines the nature of Intra-State Conflicts, defining their origins and clarifying the different types. The Arab Spring serves as the case in point to elucidate the problem. Furthermore, it is necessary to describe the role of international actors in preventing as well as solving intra-state conflicts. Interventionism, as a conflict management tool will be empirically assessed. This essay argues that there are still imperialist characteristics in the behaviour of Western States, by emphasising upon NATO foreign policy conducted in response to the Arab Uprising. The biased interventions in intra-state conflict by international actors are highlighted as to why such conflicts are so difficult to resolve. Concluding, it is remarked that ethnic, religious and cultural tension within states, as well the friction between whole civilizations are a significant factor for the complicated nature of intra-state conflicts.

Conflict theory is a rather ambiguous theoretical example in sociological thinking. This theory was born in the 1950s by many sociologists like Lewis Coser and Ralf Dahrendorf. These sociologists and many others joined terms such as, phenomena of power, interests, coercion, and conflict to form this theory. In other words, Conflict theory is mainly about power divisions and class struggle lead to conflict. This theory plays an important role when it comes to sociological studies, since it proves that sociology also has focus on phenomena of power and conflict. Since conflict theory is mainly about class struggle, one important type of conflict theory is the Marxism Conflict theory. As stated before, this theory has led to many important

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