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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
While the three methods of intervention are broad enough to encompass all actions within a global system, the room left for interpretation would be highly contested amongst competing nations. For that reason, there is not a single pre-established set of ethical standards governing all actions within the global system. However, with the creation of international agencies such as the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the IMF, the world is on the right path towards realizing a singular set of ethical standards that all the world’s nations will comply
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
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.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council, along with the nature of the unenforceable, politics and power-based international laws, allowed them to escape sanctions after their invasion of Iraq. The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation.
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
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
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).
In 1864 the Geneva Conventions were created during a conference in Geneva Switzerland, and were immediately ratified by twelve countries. Now there are one hundred and ninety four countries that have signed and ratified the conventions (ICRC 1 – 6). The Geneva Conventions set the standards in international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. There are four conventions in total, and all of which deal with a different aspect of war. The first Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers on the field during times of war, was put into effect in 1864. The Seconds Convention, which deals with the treatment of shipwrecks and sick members of armed forces as sea, was put into effect in 1906. The third convention was put into effect in 1929, and deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth Geneva Convention was put into place in 1949, after the horrors of the Second World War. This fourth convention set forth the rules and regulations dealing with the protection of civilians during times of conflict. Though only one of the conventions was created in 1949, the Geneva Conventions are most commonly referred to as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 – this being the last time they were changed. This presents several problems. The world has changed vastly since 1949. Technology, politics, laws, and of course warfare, have all changed during this time period. The issue then is that the Geneva Conventions, which are internationals laws governing war, have not, and are therefore out-of-date. That they are outdated, however, does not mean that they should simply be put to the side. The Geneva Conventions set forth a standard of humanity to be shown during wartime to member...
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
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
ABSTRACT: At the dawn of global civil society, the test for humanity is to achieve unity while preserving cultural differences as well as the distinctiveness of nations and peoples. Such unity can be reached only by recognizing human values, especially human rights. However, these rights must be strictly determined and more than mere obligations. Hence, the most important task for philosophy is to develop foundations and principles for a world society and to formulate a global consciousness and a humanistic worldview that adequately reflects the realities of our epoch. Our action must increasingly be based on an acknowledgment of global values.