Humanitarian intervention

compared to the living standards of people in so-called ‘first-world countries’ such as the United States of America or Australia, the trauma that the people of Haiti undergo in their everyday existence should be universally recognised, and humanitarian intervention should not be an option but rather a requirement. In an ethnography delving into the violence and trauma affecting the citizens of Haiti (James, 2010), anthropologist Erica Caple James provides an in-depth description of the suffering that

retaliation. That has sparked the debate on if it was not only justified but ethical to launch tomahawk missiles into war-torn parts of Syria. In an article on the Huffington Post, Dr. Helen Ouyang argues that it was justified and that military intervention is needed. She uses different forms of arguments to draw comparisons of Syria to other countries around the world, dissociate the scenario with the past military struggles and offers many reasons why the benefit will outweigh the cost.

This paper focuses on the British military intervention that occurred in Sierra Leone, on May 7 2000. As well as the effect of the intervention’s contribution towards ending the war and implementing peace-building strategies. The intervention was successful in the short term, however, it is questionable whether it was based on encouraging development. The other participants include the United Nations, President Kabbah and the remaining rebel armies of West Africa. One of the main rebel armies involved

Ostensibly, war has existed for quite some time, and the current global hegemony has not conclusively provoked further conflict, but rather, developed mechanisms to protect those affected by the circumstances of an armed conflict. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was devised by the Geneva Conventions, a paramount composition of accords that followed the Second World War in a historical juncture that would persuade political powers of the world that it was necessary to establish a customary structure

synergy in public health complex emergency interventions The UN defines complex emergencies (CE) as, “a major humanitarian crisis, of a multi-causal nature that requires a system-wide response.” I set out to determine if public-health interventions in complex emergency settings are useful; if so, how can they be efficaciously implemented. I hypothesize that a triad of multilateral military actors, international health institutions, and civilian humanitarian organizations− working as a closely coordinated

The topic of the United Nations’ (UN) interventions has been a source of heated dispute by scholars since their intervention in the Korea War in 1951. However there are interventions that garner more controversy than others. The tragedies of the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide have been hailed as some of the greatest failures in the United Nations peacekeeping and intervention missions. The Rwandan and Bosnian genocides brought around a deep, introspective critique within the UN on its

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

internal conflict and state defiance. For instance, in the case of Iran, the UN Security Council members voted to enact economic sanctions on Iranian firms, as a response to their continued Nuclear Energy Enrichment Program (The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention, 2011). From late 2011 to early 2012, the UN Security Council worked towards quelling Iran’s hostility towards western intrusion and threat of enriching more uranium through cutting off any economic ties they had with UN member states. Unfortunately

Does everything that the UN authorize really benefit those that it is meant for? The United Nations is known for its unilateral strive for peace worldwide. The only time that the United Nations ever decides to intervene in a conflict is always for the betterment of the people that are involved. Does every choice that the UN come to actually do specifically that?The premise of this paper is to argue that when the UN authorized NATO to intervene with the rebellion that was going on in Libya (during

Argument: Summerfield’s article is largely a critique of a modernised approach to humanitarian aid in the form of psychotherapy. This article argues, through the example of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), that in many ways Humanitarian aid is still a Westernised way of approaching post-war intervention. Summerfield critiques seven assumptions that are made when psychological trauma programs are deployed, assumptions which are largely taken for granted facts in the West such as war causes traumatisation