More handpicked essays just for you.
Example of humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian intervention creat problems
Example of humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide …show more content…
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. One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order …show more content…
Unfortunately for the citizens of countries like Syria, the rules enforced in the international sector are set by western nations to the benefit of western nations. This is evidenced, for example, following the Washington consensus policies instituted by western nations for the developing world, “The Washington Consensus era is often considered the “lost decade” of development, with increases in acute poverty, urban migrations, environmental degradation, increased militarization” (Lecture, 10/11/16). The west may claim that it has the best interest in aiding the developing countries growth, but empirical evidence shows that western nations will support a leader that is hostile towards improvements within their borders. Humanitarian Imperialism details the shift of humanitarian assistance in favor of western interests, “The new humanitarianism involve[d] a shift in the centre of gravity of policy away from saving lives to supporting social processes and political outcomes” (Bush 313). Although the Syrian president had been abusing human rights, the democratic process, and economic opportunity, his business friendly policies kept him in good graces with the west (Leber). The push on behalf of western nations for an integrated global economy creates a vacuum of human rights, leaving developing nations wrought with domestic
“History repeats itself”, is a commonly used phrase and it is one that can be found to hold true in many situations. Throughout history there have been many incidents in which mass murder has occurred. A modern day example of mass murder in a conflict that is ongoing is the genocides occurring in Darfur, Sudan. The corrupt government in the country supports a group called the Janjaweed, which is the militia group that is mainly responsible for the large number of Darfur residents that have been murdered, raped, or displaced (1). Although the exact number is not known, most sources estimate around 400,000 people have died and another 2,500,000 have been displaced (1). The conflict started in 2003 and although it is not as severe as it has been in past years the issue still exists and the people of Darfur are still experiencing murder and suffering. The conflict in Darfur has been a topic of discussion for many nations, including the United States. The issue arises of whether or not larger nations, who have more power, should aid in the effort to stop the Darfur genocide. Some believe very strongly that the United States has an obligation to step up and help this country control a largely unethical situation. Others take the opposite argument and have reasons to believe the interests of the United States would be best served elsewhere. The situation is more complex than it initially seems and many factors must be analyzed when considering if the United States is obligated to intervene. At the same time, a conflict of this severity and size cannot be easily contained by a small and struggling nation and sometimes a bigger nation is needed to help with a conflict of this magnitude. Being a world power, the United States has the resour...
Rieff alludes to this infusion to explain why humanitarianism is not working. The critic argues that humanitarianism, as a result of politicization, cultivated into a political blanket exploited by the “international community” in order to disguise and hide the lack of political action in humanitarian emergencies, thus delineating from the main goal of humanitarianism. To further his argument, Rieff recounts four cases of humanitarian emergencies in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia in which humanitarian efforts were not useful, carried out, or even harmful in some instances. Rieff’s frustration with this relationship is relatable; however, While I agree with Rieff in regards to humanitarianism transformative trend, Rieff fails to expound on a number of key
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
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...
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
Reason for militaristic intervention would require evidence of diminished safety and security of members of that nation. In addition, if a nation has been found assisting individuals whom have threatened or endangered the general well-being of others, militaristic intervention also applies. As for ethical standards for militaristic intervention, there are various guidelines depicting the ethical method of intervention. If conducted nation to nation, example being Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on the US, the harmed nation can intervene without international consideration. For a nation not directly involved to intervene, example being Russia equipping rebels in Syria’s “Civil War”, one must receive approval from the international governing body, in this case the UN’s Security Council. Overarching both guidelines of intervention is the compliance with the basic principles of “Just War Theory” as is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The benefit of this requirement is that it is not limited to those principles, and is up to the interpretation of the sitting UN Security Council. For a nation to intervene they must recognize each aspect of the “Just War Theory” in the case that the UN Security Council challenges the qualification of a nations declaration of war. This threat of prosecution would ideally reduce unwarranted militaristic intervention from
The Darfur case however, revealed that both of these strategies are not effective. Responding to the genocide in Darfur, the US officials declared the label genocide to be occurring. Thereafter, a politically civil-society coalition emerged so as to lobby the administration. The net outcome of these two scenarios however was the same in the absence of effective policies that could halt the genocide. The Rwandan genocide has always acted as the point of reference for similar genocides taking place around the world. Since the 2003 crisis in Darfur, a lot of comparisons have been made to Rwandan genocide. Observers have likened the Darfur genocide to what happened in Rwanda and of course giving it two connotations. First, the violence in the western parts of Sudan has been referred to another Rwanda, by basing their arguments on the nature of the violence. Since whatever was happening in Darfur is similar t...
In today’s world, it is of the utmost importance to learn from mistakes of the past. Certain events, especially tragedies that could have been avoided, hold within them the lessons and wisdom that should be used to prevent similar disasters. The 1994 Rwandan genocide resulted in over 800, 000 deaths of the Tutsi people, at the hands of the Hutu; the genocide, and the international response to it, is a lesson about the humanitarian responsibilities, successes, and shortcomings of the United Nations.
Whenever any human rights issue breaks out, there are differing opinions on the appropriate course of action. The difference in the case of ethnic cleansing is that this issue is much more critical than almost any other human rights issue. In the case of ethnic cleansing, the United States' approach to intervention could determine the fates of thousands of people. In cases of extreme ethnic cleansing, intervention can take place on an international level, with many nations cooperating in an attempt to br...
When a country fails to provide the basic needs of survival for its people, the international community is faced with the issue of intervention. However, there exists no clearly defined doctrine to guide governments or humanitarian organizations in these matters. Some people believe that the protection of sovereignty is more important than the possible benefits of intervention, preferring that governments focus on domestic concerns. Opposing this are those who believe that humanitarian intervention is necessary to resolve many conflicts and that the preservation of life trumps all else. Still another mentality suggests that these two goals are not mutually exclusive—that the members of the international community are capable of controlling their own countries while still being able to intervene in some countries. One good example of such intervention is Sierra Leone . Daniel Bergner in the book In the Land of Magic Soldiers says that this country has “been named by the United Nations, for the third year in a row, as the worst on earth. . . . Sierra Leone was . . . ravaged by what was perhaps the most horrific civil war in a land [ Africa ] of civil wars” (10). What follows is an exploration of these three arguments, with specific examples taken from the conflict in Sierra Leone .
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
Lawson, Fred H. "Syria." Politics & society in the contemporary Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. 411 - 434. Print.
Appropriate humanitarian intervention should be utilized during different types of genocide. For instance, humanitarian intervention can be associated with “military response to atrocities, separating warring factions, supervising negotiations, and brokering political settlements” (Jones, 2006).
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
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