More handpicked essays just for you.
World politics realism
Example of humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: World politics realism
War is a paradox. This is because people are killing in order to protect people from being killed. With war, often comes something known as “humanitarian intervention,” which is defined as the threat or use of force against states aimed at preventing or ending defilements of basic human rights, without the permission of the state that force is being directed toward (Holzgreffe & Keohane, 2003). Its main purpose is to relieve human suffering—but should it be executed? It’s a contradictory concept, which is why it yields so much criticism. Using violence to fight violence is like using fire to fight fire. Since humanitarian intervention sometimes occurs without the consent of the United Nations Security Council, it could be viewed as an infringement on sovereignty. Intervention such as NATO’s involvement in Kosovo is a prime example of this. In this essay, the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention, the political realism perspective on the subject and future outcome will be discussed. Humanitarian intervention as a concept is believed to have first emerged after the Cold War. Because of democracy’s success over communism, states now assumed that military action could resolve many of the world’s problems and effectively end further conflict while protecting citizens. When new calamities hit certain countries fiercely and new technologies made it possible for suffering to be publicized, the world was unsure of how to respond (Goldstein & Western, 2011). In the case of Yugoslavia, UN intervention actually rendered the situation worse by formulating promises to shield citizens which were not kept, and attempting to preserve peace where there was no longer any in the midst of ethnic conflict. Critics held that it would only fuel a longer war and more violence because of the unsolicited intervention. NATO’s sending of peacekeepers to Bosnia during the conflict in an attempt
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.
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.”
“History repeats itself”, is a commonly used phrase and it is one that can be found to hold true in many situations. Throughout history there have been many incidents in which mass murder has occurred. A modern day example of mass murder in a conflict that is ongoing is the genocides occurring in Darfur, Sudan. The corrupt government in the country supports a group called the Janjaweed, which is the militia group that is mainly responsible for the large number of Darfur residents that have been murdered, raped, or displaced (1). Although the exact number is not known, most sources estimate around 400,000 people have died and another 2,500,000 have been displaced (1). The conflict started in 2003 and although it is not as severe as it has been in past years the issue still exists and the people of Darfur are still experiencing murder and suffering. The conflict in Darfur has been a topic of discussion for many nations, including the United States. The issue arises of whether or not larger nations, who have more power, should aid in the effort to stop the Darfur genocide. Some believe very strongly that the United States has an obligation to step up and help this country control a largely unethical situation. Others take the opposite argument and have reasons to believe the interests of the United States would be best served elsewhere. The situation is more complex than it initially seems and many factors must be analyzed when considering if the United States is obligated to intervene. At the same time, a conflict of this severity and size cannot be easily contained by a small and struggling nation and sometimes a bigger nation is needed to help with a conflict of this magnitude. Being a world power, the United States has the resour...
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.
Another area of this paper I want to mention is the lack of help Bosnians received during this war torn time. The U.N. did not want to intervene till, in my opinion, it was too late. This is touched upon in each of the materials covered. 1993, the United Nations (UN) Security Council declared that Sarajevo, Gorazde, Srebrenica and other Muslim enclaves were to be safe areas, protected by a contingent of UN peacekeepers, which we read about in “Safe Area Gorazde” which we know that was a joke in its self
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
The biggest war the world has ever seen was World War II. What was one factor that led to such a quick escalation? Genocide. Over 45 million people were murdered during this tragic time. The question is: was it the allies responsibility to intervene? The answer: No. The Global Community has no responsibility to intervene in states committing genocide.
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 idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg
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.
The United Nations focused on the supply of humanitarian aid rather than stopping the genocide. They put a system in place enlisting UN peacekeepers as “suppliers of humanitarian aid to Bosnia—as hostages.” Sells claims that the West did not take the necessary actions needed to stop the crimes. He argues that if the air strikes were initiated in 1992 to prohibit the genocide, the lives of most Bosnian and US peacekeepers would have been saved. The UN and the western world took too long to intervene in Bosnia, but justified their lack of actions by claiming they were very much involved with the aid and support. Still, the nationalists of the violence “were protected by a policy designed by the policy makers of a western world that is culturally dominated by Christianity.” Since the West is compromised of many Christians, they could not bring themselves to kill a nationalist group comprised of people fighting for Christianity, according to Sells. The political leaders did not take a stand against the Serb and Croat religious nationalists in Bosnia to obstruct the mass
According to Seybolt, in March 1999, NATO launched Operation Allied Forces, which was a coercive bombing campaign over Kosovo and the rest of Serbia1. The purpose of the massive seventy eight day bombing campaign was to force the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to end the repression of Kosovo's predominantly ethnic Albanian population and to accept NATO's terms for the resolution of Kosovo's future political status. 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. In legal terms, NATO as a regional arrangement may intervene in respect of international peace and security, provided that actions it undertakes are consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter2. This is according to article 53 of the UN Charter.
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