Humanitarian Intervention Summary

The chapter introduces the evolution and motives of Humanitarian Intervention. The foundation of Humanitarian Intervention began in Europe; the 1800s saw episodes of intervention by many European Nations. The motive behind intervention revolved mainly around religion and nationality. In the 20th century, many scholars began to debate about the “use of force” to protect human rights, which replaced the term “intervention.” The Cold War saw less humanitarian interventions than the post-war era. Humanitarian interventions that occurred during the cold war were arguably weak cases pursued for personal interests. For example, the author claims that “humanitarian interventions” by the U.S. and the Soviet Union in Nicaragua and Budapest, respectively, were performed on personal interests.
In the absence of leadership from governing organizations, states will act on mere interests or humanitarian purposes. The 1970s

These were not the result of neglecting state sovereignty; rather it was based on intervening because the government was the insurgent and the people were the victims. Another note worth mentioning is the economic sanctions that emerged during the 1990s. Economic sanctions were a powerful tool that had a strong but less dangerous consequences than the use of force. In addition to that, criminal prosecutions are an important topic in the reading. The Rome Statute, established in 1998, was a major victory by the U.N. It holds anyone who commits international crimes after 2002 liable for their actions (50). The Security Council also became well known for some of its policies. It said that civil wars constitutes the use of military enforcement because it puts peace and security at risk (51). The presence of a civil war is the main reason humanitarian action is implemented and, because of the Security Council’s approval, military forces could put an end to the