It is important that the intervention does cause more harm than it sought to stop. The coalition of forces that invaded Iraq did meet the criteria of force as a last resort because before 2003, there were many Security Council Resolutions, weapons inspectors, and displays of military threats by the United States, in an effort to get Saddam Hussein to cease human rights violations. There was a reasonable attempt to use non military force in order to stop the violation occurring in Iraq. Out of the first three criteria, the Iraq War only meets one of the
The US citizens actively supported its nation’s participation in ceasing the crisis in Somalia only until the death of American soldiers and thereafter demanded the operation be terminated (Wengraf, 2011, p.118). If the safety and protection of those suffering from violations of human rights is not the core motive during mediation, then the intervention is not humanitarian whatsoever, but merely a war on a sovereign state. Without a political or economic benefit, it becomes very difficult for governments to employ its limited resources in order to fulfill the needs of individuals in foreign states. Though the international law orders the security of human rights beyond national boundaries, it fails to impose an established duty.
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But... ... middle of paper ... ...t do not have a utilitarian view and rather seek out the realism approach, then you have no regards for rules of war because you are the global power and can get away with it. In short, the only way the world is going to conduct war, is the way it is now. It will take a larger and more sustainable international effort to make universal guidelines for war. Sure, the Geneva Conventions established protocol for war, but those rules and ideas are only acknowledged by the countries that not just ratified it, but also follow it.
To gain an understanding IHL will first be defined. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines IHL as “a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict.” It can be seen as protection for those who no longer wish to continue hostilities during armed conflict and provides restrictions on warfare that could be used (ICRC, 2004: 1). International law governs the relationship between States by using conventions or treaties that are usually considered to be legally binding; this also includes IHL. However, the IHL does not provide States the authority to use actually force (ICRC, 2004: 1). To analyse IHL further, a historical point will need to be examined.
This purpose is guided with the need to understand why most of the casualties of modern conflicts are mainly civilians and not soldiers. The paper will examine the Afghanistan conflict using the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977. As a general principle, civilians are entitled to protected status under international humanitarian law and may not be attacked. However, the laws of war recognize that some civilians are more innocent and deserving of protection than others and that those who take a direct part in hostilities during an armed conflict forfeit their protected status and may be attacked1. However, military officers are under an obligation to take all possible actions to protect a civilian population2.
Use of force from any state or member states without authorizing from the united nations security council is prohibited in the united nation charter for the sake of preserving human right as well as mass destruction. It is succumbed that the condition in Libya doesn’t establish a danger to international peace and security. There was an internal as well as domestic issue of violence, aggression, protests, rallies and demonstrations. It has a very small hurdle for the international peace and security. There were no signs that it will be har... ... middle of paper ... ...gimes cannot handle all the severe condition then the mandatory power like united nation security council may give permission of military intervention to intervene on those areas where the situation needs to be intervene or where the treat of aggression, violence appear and danger to international peace and stability.
There are convincing legal and moral arguments in favor of the use of military intervention as the last resort to protect populations from actual or imminent acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 is a good illustration of the importance of the R2P for the protection of populations from atrocities. The argument of opponents to the R2P is not convincing at all as it only covers one part of the three responsibilities of the R2P. Works Cited 1. World Summit Outcome Document 2.
CHAPTER TEN ‘THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’ Humanitarian intervention refers to the uninvited intervention by external actors into the domestic affairs of a state, with the primary motive of ending or preventing human rights violations. Recent examples of humanitarian intervention are France’s intervention in Libya (2011), the NATO intervention in Kosovo (1999), and the United States’ intervention in Somalia (1992). Also worth mentioning is the United Nations’ failed intervention in Rwanda (1994). Humanitarian intervention is a widely debated foreign policy issue, because it reflects the tension between respect for national sovereignty and respect for and protection of international human rights. There is no legal definition of humanitarian intervention as it is not enshrined in international law.
The area of Gorazde is anything but protected which Sacco establishes throughout the graphic novel by calling out the UN and the US who are able to and responsible for protecting the residents of such territories, but instead turn their backs on the war saying “we must have patients” said UN sectary, and that they don’t have a dog in this fight. “…the U.N. extended safe area status to other Bosnian enclaves, including Gorazde. But the U.N. had yet to work out what the concept meant”. On one hand the U.N. had obligated itself, presumably, to keep the safe areas safe; on the other hand, the safe areas implicitly formalized Serb gain and the concentration of Muslims into what President Clinton warned would become “shooting galleries” Sacco says (Sacco, 148). These so called “safe” areas are completely abandoned by the authorities who promise to watch over them, despite being some of the top most dangerous in the world.
The UNSC was not able to come to a consensus on what measures to take to stop the violence against civilians in Syria after over three years of civil war resulting in a number of human rights violations, just as experts are not about to come to a consensus on when and how to conduct humanitarian interventions. It’s easy to agree that all people are deserving of life, liberty, and security, although when under threat, the question of when and how to intervene is not easily answered.