Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The problems of the modern world
Problems our world has to face nowadays
Modern problems in today's society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The problems of the modern world
Contemporary World Problems Paper
Introduction
Humanitarian intervention has become one of the most highly debated topics in current international politics. An example of this that can found in the news is President Obama stating “we are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international correlation that sends a clear message,” in regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, more specifically Crimea. In this post Cold War Era, this issue of humanitarian intervention has been argued over, sanctioned, used without permission, and gained momentum and force in international relations. However, this problem international issue did not always exist.
The act of intervening in a different sovereign state’s affairs for humanitarian purposes has been an issue of public international law since the 19th century. The turn of the 19th century brought on an influx of issues going from a state level to an international level. Since then, international councils have been created to be solely dedicated to defining, regulating, and sanctioning humanitarian intervention. Today’s current authority over international security is the UNSC and their view on humanitarian intervention is as follows: “International law forbids the use of force except for purposes of self-defense and collective enforcement action authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC).” While countries may adhere to these sanctions or completely ignore them, a new element has been added- should the humanitarian intervention be armed or not.
Armed humanitarian intervention is one of the primary international security problems today. This is an int...
... middle of paper ...
...ough there are laws and sanctions set in place to regulate these things, the fact of the matter is that there is not a clear definition or reasoning to go along with this issue. However the law has the power to change and catch up, which is very similar to the ability that the power of sovereignties and the definition of “armed intervention” has to change.
Works Cited
"Humanitarian Intervention: The Evolution of the Idea and Practice." Journal of International Affairs June-July 6.2 (2001): n. pag. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Lango, John W. "Is Armed Humanitarian Intervention to Stop Mass Killing Morally Obligatory." Public Affairs Quarterly 15.3 (2001): 173-91. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Wheeler, Nicholas. "Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics." (2008): n. pag. Abersystwyth University. Web. 34 Mar. 2014. .
Her memoir starts off in Darfur in 2005, where in her late 20’s, she hits rock bottom while managing a refugee camp for 24,000 civilians. It backtracks to her internship in Rwanda, while moving forward to her challenges in Darfur, in addition to her experiences in post- tsunami Indonesia, and post-quake in Haiti. By sharing her story, Alexander gives readers an opportunity to go behind-the-scenes into the devastations that are censored on media outlets. She stresses that these are often the problems that individuals claim they are educated on, but rarely make it their priority to solve. However, that is not the case for Jessica Alexander as she has over 12 years of experience working with different NGO’s and UN operations. As a result, Alexander earns the credibility to critique the multi-billion-dollar humanitarian aid industry. From her painful yet rewarding work experience, Alexander gives an honest and empathetic view of humanitarian aid as an establishment and a
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
In “Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq, Alex Bellamy argues that war is only justified in exceptional cases where “supreme humanitarian intervention” is genuinely required (Bellamy, p. 137). Bellamy discusses the ethics of intervention and the decision of the US to invade Iraq. He provides the argument that international law does not provide moral reasoning on the issues of war. However, he acknowledges that it does provide an important foundation on the issue of legitimacy of war. He discusses two legal justifications for war, which include implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defense of that state. Neither of these is the case in Iraq, although the government may say
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
Just War and Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (2):160-81. Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987) The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Utilitarianism and other essays.
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
Present legal principles are only credible if supported by strong rational and moral reasoning. The most influential moral justification for humanitarian intervention, is founded in natural law and just war theory, dating back to St Augustine. It is argued that there exist inherent and objective moral principles within humanity, irrespective of societal development. Therefore, according to just war theory, certain wars, in which such principles have been infringed upon are considered to be absolutely just (Jus ad Belum). This concept of legitimized wars in the name of justice, for example in self defense, can also be extended to humanitarian intervention. The breaking of fundamental human rights by states creates a situation whereby intervention in the defense of humanity is morally permissible. This view was expounded by philosopher Hugo Grotius, often described as a ‘father’ of modern international law, who supported the legality of humanitarian intervention in a situation “where a tyrant should inflict upon his subjects such treatment as no one is warranted in inflicting” (as cited in Chesterman
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_05/articles/883.html> [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19
at least try to get a job. If there are more people like this, the country
The earth is considered as one of the most beautiful planets in the universe. It is the only planet in our galaxy that has enough water to support life. Unfortunately our planet is suffering due to many problems which should be solved before it is too late. The major problems that are facing our world today are population, pollution and animal extinction.
There are many things wrong with society today. Some of the problems could be easily solved, while others may be impossible to solve. Today, many of the problems we have in society people feel the government should fix seeing as they are in charge. But, many of the problems start and should end with people doing their part as a group and want to make the world a better place for future generations. Not all problems in society can be fixed at once, but with people coming together we can come closer to bettering our society as a whole. Three major problems in society today would be: racism, violence, and immigration.