Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Here we analyze humanitarian intervention ...
... middle of paper ...
...iversity Press. 7 December 2009
10. Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
11. Wheeler, Nicholas J. Saving Strangers - Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. 7 December 2009
12. Wight, Martin. ‘Four Seminal Thinkers in International Theory - Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant, and Mazzini.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press) 7December 2009
13. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml (accessed on 7/12/2009)
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.
Smith, Tony, Morality and the use of force in a unipolar world: the “Wilsonian moment”?. Eyhics and International Affairs v. 14, (2000): p. 11-22
The question is whether a state is looking inward or outward for a deepened understanding and heightened application of human rights. The nation-state, which is authorized to transform principles into both policy and practice, is the central resolution to the question. However, nation-states are faced with the challenge of balancing their sovereignty with the moral necessity to produce enforceable regulations that both establish and protect global citizenship. Although there is a national interest in building a reputable international rapport, it cannot be denied that sovereignty is always an ingrained issue. In return, nation states attempt to limit the extent to which it involves itself in the addressing of human rights violations abroad. For example, although countries delegate authority to international institutions, they do so conditionally and preserve the right to disengage. Furthermore, solidarity joins sovereignty as another hindrance to a post-national world comprised solely of human rights. For as long as human rights include positive rights, such as freedom from poverty, there is a requirement for thick solidarity, a form of global community commitment. Necessitating a sense of collective responsibility, thick solidarity is increasingly
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg
With peace and sanctity of mankind as the primary driver, a set of ethical standards must be established to ensure the governing of the global system. In order for this to occur, general ethical standards should be agreed upon by all sovereign governments. But one might ask, what are these ethical standards? The ethical standards are relative to the method of intervention a nation or international agency may pursue if a nation is believed to be denying basic human rights from its citizens. These basic human rights are to be determined by an international agency such as the United Nations, to be ratified by its member sovereign nations. For this to be possible, these standards must be broad in order to encompass all people without bias
Joyce, James Avery. Red Cross International and the Strategy of Peace. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1959.
“ 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
Realism is not only the pervasive approach in international relations literature but is accurate in describing and anticipating state actions. Constructivists need a genuine response to realism and, in order to do that, norms need to enter into the process of rational decision-making. This could take several forms including increasing costs of norm violation, introducing hegemonic power into the system, or redefining interests in terms other than material. Discussions in the literature analyze the impact of norms, regimes, ideas, or principles on international relations, but do not often take a critical enough look at what is at stake. Realist politics hinder progressive, humanitarian initiatives because of its marriage to power and material capabilitie...
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.
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will outline the relevant international laws and how they are applicable.
Introduction Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or other status. And these human rights violations are in some countries like Central African Republic, Syria, USA, Ireland, and etcetera. One example is Syria, where the people afraid live here. Therefore, article 3 of the Universal Human Rights Act is violated in Syria. This essay seeks to consider the human rights violations in Syria.
In a world plagued with conflict and political instability there are many manners in which the international community is prone to react. In current day the Nobel Peace Prize winning direction of Peace Making, an ideology that has been accredited to former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, has received much time and attention. A further step beyond the latter movement has been referred to as "Peace Making". This rather new philosophy is founded on the premise of establishing peace even through forceful military presence. The final step is intervention; this is the deployment of an external party into a conflict where the external party has not been invited. The many moral and ethical implications set by such a precedent is subject to much debate and poses one of the toughest philosophical problems today. It is the contention of this thinker that the practice of intervention is one that should never have been used and furthermore must be seized as it is not fit for practice today in our world for the following points of reason: the concept is altruistic in theory but is practiced by political players, there is a dangerous standard set into place that could possibly be used maliciously by parties against the sovereignty of other nations and finally it is very difficult to determine the legitimacy of a nation state considering that the countries of the world do not share the same philosophical criterion to define "legitimate government".
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...