Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the principle that the international community has a right, or duty, to intervene in states that have suffered from large-scale loss of life, or genocide, either due to deliberate action by the state’s government or due to a collapse of government (The Globalization of World Politics, 2013, p. 480). According to Allen Buchanan of University of Arizona, humanitarian intervention can often be defined as infringement on a state’s sovereignty by external forces in order to prevent human rights violations (The Problem of Internal Legitimacy, A. Buchanan, 2002, p.71). It is also carefully noted that the term “infringement” does not always imply an unjust, and the notion of infringement remains neutral to …show more content…
The legal case for the right of humanitarian intervention can be labeled as counter-restrictionists, meaning that the legal right of humanitarian intervention is primarily based on the UN Charter as well as international law (The Globalization of World Politics, 2013, p. 480). Counter-restrictionists argue that human rights are as important as peace and security in the UN Charter (The Globalization of World Politics, 2013, p. 481). As for the moral case regarding humanitarian intervention, many people feel that we have a moral obligation to protect others. This can also be considered cosmopolitanism, which is the idea that humanity is to be treated as a single moral community that has moral priority over our national or subnational communities (The Globalization of World Politics, 2013, p.200). The moral case that surrounds cosmopolitanism is that human rights are universal and since we are all global citizens under the idea of cosmopolitanism, we have a responsibility to protect one another. Another argument that is associated with the pros of humanitarian intervention is the idea of globalization. We now live in a very interconnected world, which can make it more difficult for us to turn a blind eye to civil unrest in other parts of the world. Globalization allows the world to seem like one community, which is why many feel that humanitarian intervention is necessary …show more content…
For realists, who initially reject morality, the main issue on whether or not they choose to intervene is based on national interest. If a state does not have a national interest in a country in need, then they may only choose to intervene after receiving pressure from their citizens, or not at all. This was portrayed during the Rwandan genocide with the United States and Belgium. Only France seemed to have a national interest in Rwanda, although their assistance was deemed just as helpful as Belgium and the US. Morgenthau quoted, “if states pursue only their national self-interests, without defining them too grandly they will collide with other states minimally,” meaning that the world can remain peaceful as long as all states focus on their own interests in their own state (National Interests and Altruism in Humanitarian Intervention, A. Krieg, 2013, p.38). Initially, realists may use this argument to avoid intervening into international affairs, making it seem as though they are helping rather than hurting. Realists believe that survival is the main goal; therefore, intervening into other states’ affairs may affect the ultimate survival of their own people. Some realists may choose to intervene if it will allow them to sustain a proper reputation on the international stage (National Interests and Altruism in
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.”
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
Intervening in countries facing genocide costs hundreds of millions of dollars. History clearly shows the cost to intervene, take WWII for example or the Rwanda genocide, or the Somali genocide. All of these genocides costs interventionists $400 million or more, “ Each of the more than 220 Tomahawk missiles fired by the U.S. military into Libya, for example, cost around $1.4 million… Spent between $280,000 and $700,000 for each Somali saved” (Valentino). $280,000 is a ton of money to save one person, and given these high costs, it could cost up to $7 million dollars to save ten people. They are not saving that many lives by deciding to intervene either, “Scholars have estimated that the military mission there probably saved between 10,000 and 25,000 lives,”(Valentino). 10,000-25,000 lives and the U.S. spent $7 billion to intervene
... another state with the mindset of hopefully improving the overall atmosphere. Although intervention will always be in question, whether or not intervention is just an excuse to invade, with the creation of this resolution and the topic in discussion, most likely intervention will result it positive outcomes. One of the biggest contribution to successful interventions is the intention the state has going in. If the intention is to hopefully resolve conflicts and to intervene peacefully, meaning an unlikely possibility of military enforcement, intervention will be successful.
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
- Specifically state to the reader if there was U.N. intervention, could genocide have been avoided?
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.
Realists disregard the fact that moral values guide ones foreign policy. They also believe that even though one might deceive themselves about considering democracy and morals, the matter of the fact is that people will always put their self-interest before anything else thus governments act upon things such as geopolitical, economic interests for example. According to realists, there is no higher authority to punish those countries that misbehave so a country can just do whatever it pleases.
They don't want to send their troops or help with food and necessities because of the possible financial impact to their own country. However, once the people committing the genocide multiply and pose a threat to more countries, the international community must help in order to prevent the genocide from entering their own countries. The world didn't get involved in both the Holocaust and the Bosnian genocide until the German empire and the Serbs in Bosnia, respectively, became very powerful and dangerous to the surrounding areas. The only way to prevent genocide is to destroy it on impact and not wait for six million to perish senselessly.
Various schools of thought exist as to why genocide continues at this deplorable rate and what must be done in order to uphold our promise. There are those who believe it is inaction by the international community which allows for massacres and tragedies to occur - equating apathy or neutrality with complicity to evil. Although other nations may play a part in the solution to genocide, the absolute reliance on others is part of the problem. No one nation or group of nations can be given such a respo...
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
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