The Encyclopedia Britannica describes sovereignty as “the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.” Humanitarian intervention has had no firm precedent under the international legal apparatus due to state sovereignty, the inviolate claim of a state against all others acts as a legal curtain against external interference in their internal affairs. The United Nations Charter Article 2(4) prohibits the “threat or use of force” against another state, even when civil bloodshed is subsequently leading to a humanitarian conflict. However, this charter bears two exceptions to this prohibition: 1: Article 51 under Chapter VII allows a state to utilize lethal force in self-defense under …show more content…
Especially if their government has ceased to represent and respect their best interest, thus the state’s sovereignty no longer coalesces in its government. Secondly, the State’s citizens would rely on the international community to convey and express their sovereign interest in appropriate governance when they themselves are unable to depose a governmental body that violates their rights. In other words, the state’s national borders would have metaphorically become fractured, allowing foreign states in the global community to cross borders for the sake of humanitarian …show more content…
Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, humanitarian intervention in instances of civil unrest directly contravenes the principles of national and political sovereignty. However, the Charter does not mention parameters purely for humanitarian grounds, yet we have seen multiple humanitarian interventions under Chapter VII in the previous decade. Instances which exemplify this are the humanitarian catastrophes of Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, where the United Nations had authorized intervention across their national borders. In these instances, Chapter VII was deemed applicable for intervention as there was a growing cause for concern that these conflicts would spill over into neighboring
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
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 some cases this intervention in other countries could cause the situation to become far worse. In Darfur two rebel movements took up arms against the Sudanese government over a lack of protection from invading nomads and the marginalization of the area. “Saddam responded to the domestic uprisings with extreme brutality, killing perhaps 20,000 Kurds and 30,000-60,000 Shiites, many of them civilians” (Valentino). An intervention of Saddam’s brutality was attempted and after 100 hours the US withdrew forces. The intervention was entirely unsuccessful, even with foreign aid. And in retribution Saddam brutally killed tens of thousands of people, many of which were
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.
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 United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
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.
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
Humanitarian intervention is definitely one of the most controversial subjects of the recent decades- among states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia. The centre of the debate is the clash of traditional principles of state sovereignty and new adopted norms on use of force for humanitarian purposes. Despite the political controversies between the countries, humanitarian intervention is now an international norm which calls for action anytime there are serious mass life threatening occurrences in any country.
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
Weak and failed states share many common characteristics. One of the most common features of a weak state is the presence of persistent violence. This violence is in the form of civil wars and civil unrest, this is an indicator that a government has lost legitimacy as well as control over some parts of territory. Other features include a weak bureaucracy that is very susceptible to corruption especially corruption from non-state actors such as terrorists and warlords. As the government’s power and influence continues to decline, citizens turn to these non-s...
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...