Humanitarianism; characteristics, prevailing boundaries and recent challenges By Mehrnaz Farhangazad Introduction In this assignment, it is intended to define and discuss the notion of Humanitarianism, explain its principles and investigate its boundaries. I would try to explain how the humanitarian act could be identified among other actors in a crisis settings, what are the boundaries of humanitarian act and how these boundaries are being challenged. First it will be fruitful to give an explanation of what is called as Humanitarianism, secondly give a brief overview of its principles and then find out the boundaries of the humanitarian act and its challenges. Discussion Although the humanitarian acts have rooted in history, it is believed that Henri Dunant stated the modern version of the humanitarianism for the first time after being witness of Solferino battle in 1859. He later got appreciated and won the Noble peace prize due to the humanitarian acts he has done. His memories from Solferino battle inspired the establishment of International Committee Of Red Cross (ICRC). In 1864 the phenomena humanitarianism mentioned in the first Geneva Convention (Collinson and Elhawary 2012). Nowadays the term humanitarianism is a common concept which is spread and known worldwide, and became a global trend more than ever. …show more content…
According to this definition, the very concept of humanitarianism is helping strangers who are in need of immediate assistance, based on non-profit motivations. “ Humanitarianism aspire to relief victims of human-made and natural disaster, but for many it does not end with the termination of emergency. Many aspire to transform the structures that endanger populations” (Fassin
The proliferation of crises around the world has led to a prominent increase in the amount of humanitarian aid needed. Humanitarian aid work represents not only compassion, but commitment to support innocent populations that have experienced sudden or on-going tragedies. Some of these tragedies include: malnutrition, genocide, diseases, torture, poverty, war, natural disasters, government negligence, and unfortunately much more. There is no doubt that these tragedies are some of the world’s toughest problems to solve as they are often complex, multifaceted and require diligence and patience. For this reason, being a humanitarian aid worker is more than a profession, it is a lifestyle that requires a sharp distinction between one’s work and
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
An Imperfect Offering is a powerful personal memoir from a James Orbinski, a Canadian who has spent most of his adult life in front-line humanitarian work in the world's worst conflict zones. Despite its dark chapters, it is also a hopeful story about the emergence of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) as a new and independent agent of civil society, and the possibilities of making the world a better place. In “An Imperfect Offering”, James Orbinski tells the story of people who have been harmed by war, and humanitarian workers who have come to heal them when possible. He engages in deep reflection on the nature of humanitarian response and the many threats to this most human activity. He has sharp criticism for governments who act to cause suffering or to prevent its relief. He asks, “How am I able to be in relation to the suffering of others?” His life as a doctor, and a humanitarian worker illustrates this answer. Accordingly, the books main thesis is that humanitarianism is about the struggle to create space to be fully human. However, he illustrates how this struggle is becoming increasingly difficult with the imperfect offering of politics, which has resulted in the blurring of boundaries between humanitarian assistance and the political objectives of military intervention.
Throughout history there has been a power struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors, which can be identified by the historic process of imperialism. Imperialism once thought of being a heinous action carried out by the oppressors or in other words the powerful, wealthy, and influential states. These countries venture out and try to colonize other underdeveloped countries so that they can extract resources, labor, and wealth. The oppressed are forced to abide by the rules of the powerful minority. These are things of the past, the international community has moved past barbaric imperialism. But does Imperialism still exist? Is there still hope or salvation for humanitarian intervention in today’s world? I believe that imperialism does not exist in the world today and that humanitarian intervention is still possible. To make this argument, this paper will begin with a brief explanation of the Kosovo precedent and its justification towards actions in Syria and Ukraine. I then move to an analysis offered from Liberals on the questions of imperialism and humanitarian intervention in Syria and Ukraine then will use Realist and Marxists ideology to engage in arguments. I will conclude with a brief overview and conclusion of the analysis to make a lasting impression of my feelings toward imperialism and humanitarian intervention.
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.
The “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as it is mixed with considerations of national interest, such as state influence, national power, prestige and access to potential oil supplies. For example, in Syria and Sri Lanka, the responsibility to protect norm has not done very little to protect populations within states. The author notes that the international community's feeble responsibility on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect.” The West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur raises skepticism about the West’s humanitarian intervention techniques, especially after the invasion of Iraq and western strategic interests in Sudan. Nevertheless, the notion of the responsibility to protect is important in the protection of human rights as it seeks to confront atrocity committed by states through prevention, protection or
Humanitarian intervention is often described as “using of military force in others states to halt human rights abuses or otherwise promote human rights”. This definition of human rights fails to consider the other aspects of intervention such as non-violent form of aid, such as medical supplies or food. While there are less aggressive ways that nations can intervene the issues of humanitarian intervention arise from military action. The main goal of intervention is to alleviate the suffering of the people who are suffering from abuse. A common concern with humanitarian intervention is when is it justified for other nations to ignore sovereignty and become involved in a countries domestic matters.
Unauthorized humanitarian intervention is a complex issue in international society, and is one which can be analyzed in great depth and in a multitude of different ways. Looking at this issue from moral, philosophical, and political standpoints, one may form many different arguments on how to reconcile the legal issues with the moral intuition to act to help those who are oppressed. Saving Strangers, through arguing for a single viewpoint, and Humanitarian Intervention, by compiling many different opinions, both give informative and well-written summaries of one of the more complicated problems that has affected international relations for the past few decades.
Doctors Without Borders, otherwise known as Medecins Sans Frontieres, their french name, is a very important non governmental organization. While originally established in France, they now have 21 independent divisions worldwide. Their mission is to offer assistance to victims of disasters, man-made or natural, and to victims of armed conflict. Their primary concerns are medical but they also “advocate for the respect of basic human rights and humanitarian law” (Tanguy, 1998) They strive to have complete neutrality and impartiality, but will speak out to bring attention to extreme cases or conditions. ("Charter | MSF USA," n.d.)
The clash between State sovereignty and the protection of human rights abuses through humanitarian intervention still remains prominent in international relations today. The international community faces a dilemma of allowing violations of human rights in defence of maintaining State sovereignty and intervention (Ludlow 1999). Humanitarian intervention can be understood as the use of coercive action or military force in another state without their permission aimed at “preventing or ending widespread and grave violation of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than their own citizens” (Kantareva 2011, p. 1). As Helen Burkhalter, human rights activist,
A substantial argument which is increasingly becoming a matter of contention in the event of contemporary armed conflict is the applicability of civilian protection during armed conflict that involves non-state actors. This paper shall discuss the contemporary challenges facing international humanitarian law with regards to civilian protection during such armed conflict. It will concentrate on the situation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The aim of the paper will be to analyze the reasons why civilians are neglected during conflicts and how the different actors involved in the conflicts influence international humanitarian law. This purpose is guided with the need to understand why most of the casualties of modern conflicts are mainly civilians and not soldiers.
The issue of humanitarian intervention has become increasingly prominent in worldwide debates regarding its role in ethics and legitimacy in international relations. Uncertainty arises as to whether there are any moral obligation for humanitarian intervention and the concerning justifications of the violation of state sovereignty. In viewing the matter ethically and applying Immanuel Kant’s principle of cosmopolitan law from his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, humanitarian intervention can be established as a conflict between a cosmopolitan responsibility, which is to protect and promote human rights because of their universality, and an obligation to respect state sovereignty as a crucial basis for moral and political international order. Inevitably, fulfilling one set of responsibilities can involve the violation of the other in situations for example where governments are actively abusing the fundamental rights of their own citizens. Many Third World leaders, consider the concept of humanitarian intervention to be potentially destabilising for the international system, and view it as an excuse for more powerful nations to undermine and threaten their state sovereignty (Ayoob, 2004; p.99). By using the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as a reference point, this essay will investigate the relationships between states when dealing with human rights standards and cultural differences. In examining the doctrine of ‘the responsibility to protect’, this essay will justify humanitarian intervention as a moral requirement of international order by focusing on the idea that the broader community of states must assume the responsibility of intervention when individual sovereign states are unw...
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
Humanitarian can be defined as a person who are concern and denoting an event that involves widespread human suffering, especially requires the large-scale provision of aid. As a humanitarian organisation will need to cope with different types of natural disaster or emergency such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, epidemics, droughts, famines, terrorist attacks, and war situations to a combination of several disasters which may occur simultaneously. However, humanitarian organisation will associate with non-government organisation (NGO), national government involvement, international donors and humanitarian organisation and administering relief to vulnerable beneficiaries at disaster sites across the world by providing aids and financing support.
At the same time, however, the commonality of humanitarian values and norms should not be underplayed as humanitarian actions are imposed by moral values underlying humanitarian principles. In its broadest and most fundamental form, the essence of humanitarianism can be distilled as the imperative to ‘save lives at risk’ (Barnett and Weiss, 2008: 11) and alleviates the suffering of others.