The end of the Cold War brought with it a surge in the prominence of humanitarian intervention as a subject of debate in the study of international relations (Atack 2005: 125). Humanitarian intervention, at its core, is an incredibly problematic phenomenon, clashing with various IR schools of thought, compromising international law and questioning the ethical standards of international actors (Fixdal & Smith 1998: 284). This essay will address what makes humanitarian intervention so contentious. The first half will address the implications of humanitarian intervention on international law, whilst the second half will take an ethical approach, applying the Just War Theory to the 1999 NATO bombings on Yugoslavia (code name ‘Operation Allied …show more content…
Just War Theory (JWT) is a common, and valuable framework to scrutinize war and armed conflict and decide whether those actions were ethical. JWT contains two principles, Jus ad Bellum (concerning ends or goals of war) and Jus in Bello (concerning conduct of war) (Atack 2005: 62). There are 6 standard criteria under Jus ad Bellum, and these are legitimate authority, just cause, last resort, proportionality, right intention and probable success. The criteria for jus in bello are, proportionality and non-combatant immunity. It is instantly apparent that HI does not meet many of these criteria. For example, just cause is commonly defined as self-defence (Guthrie & Quinlan 2007: 17). Despite being on behalf of citizens in Yugoslavia, NATO’s actions were not self-defence. Legitimate authority was also breached as NATO acted without the permission of the UN Security Council, subsequently angering other UN member states. These two criteria alone are enough to conclude that Operation Allied force was not ‘just’. Although each intervention is unique, it is clear that HI and Just War are incompatible. This could lead many to concluding that HI is unethical, and thus adds to the controversial nature of it. The incompatible nature of JWT and HI has led a stream of theories that look to modify JWT for HI. Lucas (2003: 74) describes these as Jus ad …show more content…
Kosovar Albanians in Yugoslavia were facing extreme oppression, with an estimated 800 000 refugees fleeing the region as the Miolosevic government enacted an ethnic cleansing (NY Times 2006). NATO saw this as a supreme emergency. There was strong enough evidence to suggest that without international support, the Milosevic reign of terror would become even more brutal (IICK 2000: 88). This satisfies the ‘just cause’ criterion of Jus ad Interventionism. The ‘last resort’ criterion requires the military action to only be considered when all other peaceful alternatives have been exhausted (Atack 2005: 68). Roberts (1999: 104) explains that numerous attempts were made by NATO, the UN and the EU to negotiate a peace deal with the Yugoslavian government. These proved ineffective, and there appeared no other reasonable alternative to end the gross violations of human rights. As such, NATO’s response was indeed a ‘last
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.
The United States launched an operation known as Operation Desert Shield, also known as the Persian Gulf War, in August of 1990 in response to Saddam Hussein’s order to the Iraqi forces to take over Kuwait. President George Herbert Walker Bush made the decision to send American troops to Saudi Arabia to form an international coalition that would eventually turn into an operation known as Operation Desert Storm. The United States Army had not witnessed an event of such international and Homefront importation since the Cold War.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
On March 24, 1999, the united countries of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under pressure from the United States, launched an illegal assault upon a sovereign nation. The evidence is overwhelming that leaders within the United State government sponsored this decision with the extreme perseverance from President of the United States. NATO should have dismissed the request for assault and involvement for it was clearly illegal. It’s perpetrators showed total disregard for Article One of the NATO Charter, which incorporates by reference the United Nations Charter, Chapter One, Article Two, Sections Three, Four and Seven. These sections make it clear that NATO’s role is to be purely defensive. The aggression that NATO has undertaken did not come from or with approval of the UN Security Council, which NATO’s Charter clearly states numerous times that the UN Security Council will convene and approve of any such matter or action. It is a brutal violation of NATO’s Charter and of all principles of international law.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
Last Resort: A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. From a diplomatic standpoint there are many other options in which conflict can be resolved. Often treaties are used to avoid war, however, the intention of resolutions should be to preserve moral justice rather than to avoid costly combat. The use of force should only be a last resort as a response to aggressive action.
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 just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
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
...perts agree that the air strikes against Kosovo by NATO were illegal because they were never authorized by the security council. However, libertarian expert cite humanitarian international law to justify NATO's actions. For example the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that NATO was justified and its actions were legitimate and that a new form of intervention was emerging- for cases involving repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over other concerns of the law of states. Thus any fragrance violations of humanitarian law, be it crimes against humanity, violations of human rights in the Geneva convention or ethnic cleansing, may provide a legitimate basis for action on the part of international community because all of these have international consequences and go well beyond sacred principles of the domestic jurisdiction of state.8
The suppression of ethnic culture and identity also made people want to return to older ways. When Tito died in 1980, a council of ethnic chieftains replaced him. His bans on nationalism and ethnic identity were undone, and while peace did last, Yugoslavia was as divided as it had been before the unification. The enmity between groups was only worsened by the rise of radical politicians like the Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, who was largely responsible for spurring on the Bosnian genocide. Despite the growing threat in the region, the European Community, precursor to the European Union, supported the independence of Yugoslavian countries. (Doder). With the rifts between peoples growing every day, and the peace growing ever more strained, it was ridiculous that the EC didn’t anticipate violence in Yugoslavia. Yet they enacted no precautionary measures at all, and at the start of the last decade of the 20th century, brutality and insanity was just days
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Imagine waking up one day to the thundering of blows given at the door telling you to “open up or be shot down.” It is the Serb police, and they are telling you that you and your whole family had to leave your home immediately. This is how it went for many Albanian people during what some Serb extremists called “demographic genocide.” This was the beginning of what many would call the Kosovo War, and it lasted from March to June 1999. After NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, something strange happened. Now the people being victimized were the Serbs and anyone who was “friendly” to them. In this paper, I will speak about what happened before and after the war in Kosovo.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]