Humanitarian intervention

establish peace. The United States government routinely utilizes military intervention in circumstances deemed necessary to avert controversy. Intervention is not desirable at all echelons. Military intervention demands an extremely brutal and decisive measure that must be utilized only in case of emergency. Unfortunately, governments often do not consider peaceful options, and immediately turn to violence, therefore intervention is not often sanctioned. At this point one must consider that nonintervention

‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention, International Peacekeeping, vol. 21 no. 5, pp. 569-603. In this article, Paris examines the assumed link between military intervention and the desired result of preventing or ending mass atrocities. Paris uses the case study of Libya as an example to point out the five fundamental structural problems in this logic of military intervention to end the killing of civilians. This article is useful for my essay

particular did not respond to the situation of Rwanda and when it did they clearly refused to even call the killing and murdering taking place Genocide. They believed that it was another civil war in a country which would conclude very soon without intervention. They

‘International Commission on the Intervention and State Sovereignty’’ (ICISS) A group of retired politicians, diplomats and humanitarians chaired by former Australian foreign minister Garth Evans, and highly respected former Algerian diplomat Mohammed Sahnoun’ (Glanville and IVONNE, 2014). This was set up and represented by the Canadian government in December 2001 which made tensions between state sovereignty and humanitarian necessity obvious by NATO’S 1999 intervention in Kosovo, which had an impact

the nations that comprised the coalition, save for Turkey, conducting Operation Provide Comfort went through the official channel of the UN shows that the intention was to act within the norms of the international community for conducting humanitarian interventions. Had the US decided to act unilaterally, without permission from the other states involved or the UN, it strongly indicate that the US self-interests superseded those of the global community. Furthermore, the coalition of western powers

written by the American economist, historian and military strategist Edward Nicolae Luttwak in 1999, in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It make an easily understandable “buzz”, since its main assumption is that most kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations are, in an objective point of view, a bad thing for the peace, and that it tends, paradoxically, to slower its establishment. We will analyze here the main hypothesis that Luttwak is developing among the article, the first one being

NATO is currently violating the sovereignty of many states, which is considered the greatest breach of international law. Humanitarian interventions led by NATO are becoming big controversies as many individuals and states are wary of the fact that they do not support world peace. Many unruly interventions have taken place such as the war in Kosovo in 1998. The motives behind the war as well as the means used to conduct it will be focused on in this research paper. NATO-fought wars often tend to

counter-interventionism to balance the influence of another foreign state actor, (III) and in times of mass killings and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the the state. In writing for Dissent, Walzer in fact agrees with the notion that such intervention has just cause, but maintains that the conflict itself is nonetheless still unjust as he foresees no “reasonable prospect of success” or “any vision of what a morally just end would look like.” Under the principles of just war theory, it would

the humanitarian tragedy and the flood of refugees. In Syria’s civil war, the critical mass participation of local and international actors, with different priorities, perceptions and interests, has dramatically reduced the likelihood of a negotiated or military solution. In this context, the United Nation Security Council is the most suitable and pragmatic space to lead and seek for a multilateral solution, instead of continuing with these failed unilateral or bilateral military interventions that

international community to prevent mass atrocities. We needed an international guideline to systematically and effectively respond to civil war and intrastate conflict. Out of this was born the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Humanitarian intervention was by no means a new topic—its rhetoric has been around since the mid 1800s. However, in trying to codify the “right to intervene” there was a controversial