In our first discussion, we discussed the complexity of genocide and the difficulty in defining it to be a “one size fits all” concept. I proposed that a transferable definition to all nations needs to be established because different circumstances can cause the definition to be amended. Therefore, a feasible policy of intervention can be developed in order to confront the problem of genocide, yet it might need to be a transferable policy as well. Appropriate humanitarian intervention should be utilized during different types of genocide. For instance, humanitarian intervention can be associated with “military response to atrocities, separating warring factions, supervising negotiations, and brokering political settlements” (Jones, 2006). …show more content…
Moreover, Jones argues that there should also be “non-military intervention strategies… military solutions should be a last resort” (Jones, 2006). While this argument is between what types of intervention to decide on, there is still the other argument about whether or not to intervene at all. Donnelly’s article highlights Robert Jackson’s opinion on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Jackson argues that “atrocities such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo are local tragedies rather than matters of international responsibility… international society has no right to come between a people and its government” (Donnelly, 2002). I cannot disagree with Jackson enough. When human rights are clearly being violated, then international society has the right to come between the people and their government. If the government no longer respects their people, then the international society no longer has to respect the “boundaries” that were stopping intervention in the first place. Unfortunately, this would clearly disrupt international order. Therefore, a feasible policy of intervention needs to be developed in order to account for most situations and not create another world
The Darfur case however, revealed that both of these strategies are not effective. Responding to the genocide in Darfur, the US officials declared the label genocide to be occurring. Thereafter, a politically civil-society coalition emerged so as to lobby the administration. The net outcome of these two scenarios however was the same in the absence of effective policies that could halt the genocide. The Rwandan genocide has always acted as the point of reference for similar genocides taking place around the world. Since the 2003 crisis in Darfur, a lot of comparisons have been made to Rwandan genocide. Observers have likened the Darfur genocide to what happened in Rwanda and of course giving it two connotations. First, the violence in the western parts of Sudan has been referred to another Rwanda, by basing their arguments on the nature of the violence. Since whatever was happening in Darfur is similar t...
To start off with, what is genocide? Genocide is the killing of a massive number of people of in a group. Genocide has not only been practices in the present day, but it has been practiced for m...
Genocide: The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular group or nationality. When people think of this forbidding word, their mind immediately flashes to images of concentration camps and Adolf Hitler’s army raising their arms, saluting to swastikas used during the Holocaust in WWII. But what people don’t realize is that genocide is not such a rarity. Thousands, even millions of civilians die each time genocide strikes. Genocides have been committed since the beginning of humanity, but three massacres since Hitler’s reign left the world shocked again at its own cruelty.
“Darfur Genocide.” World Without Genocide. William Mitchell School of Law, n.d. Web. 16 April 2014. .
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.
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.”
Genocide is a huge problem in today’s society. While there are laws set down to handle cases where genocide occurs, the idea and premise of genocide and all that it entails is still widely debatable. It’s difficult to put a label and definition on a term that, while it has a long history of existence, is very rare and unknown to the common man. When I say rare, genocide only occurs in very extreme cases and situations, but it doesn’t make it any less of a horrible crime.
- The meaning of Genocide, and the impact it has on a single person and society.
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.
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...
“Genocide: Worse than War” is a documentary that covers the horrors of genocide throughout the years of human existence, and a criticism of the concept that one person or group of people perpetrate mass killings. The narrator and documentarian, Daniel Goldhagen, takes an interesting perspective, as his father is a survivor from the Holocaust. His father says of genocide “Nothing is inevitable… leaders choose to initiate killings and ordinary citizens choose to condone it” (00:08). This is the problem that Goldhagen addresses throughout the film, and suggests that just as it happened in Nazi Germany, it continues to happen around the world today, unnoticed, and entirely ignored by the organizations who have pledged to resist anything similar. Goldhagen states that in recent human history, over 100 million people have lost their lives to the atrocities of genocide, more than those who have died in combat (00:04). The leaders of these nations engrain a mentality of separation, of “us versus them”, and use
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
He states that we do not have the right to intervene, but the responsibility to protect” (Evans, 2008). Humanitarian intervention can be effective at times, but not always. Seybolt notes that one of the most dangerous aspects of humanitarian intervention is when international governments manipulate the numbers of deaths and refugees to suit their agenda. It is important to report the real amount of people saved because overestimating can be used as an excuse to show effectiveness through radical actions. Additionally, empirical evidence shows in past conflicts, lack of resources and slow response prevented saving more lives. To prevent the same failures from reoccurring, it is necessary to consider three factors “the needs of the population and aid organizations on the ground, the objectives of the intervention, and the strategy employed by the intervener” (Seybolt, 2007). All of these lessons learned helped to shape the current R2P policy. For example, humanitarian intervention terminology was removed because it was linked only to military intervention. As it was shown during Operation Restore Hope, intervention goes well beyond that. Unfortunately, the civil wars of Iraq and Syria are keeping ISIL strong and a negotiated agreement seems to be the only way to end them. The inefficacy to deal with the atrocities committed in Syria and Iraq clearly undermine the principles of the R2P policy because the international community has failed to protect the population from “genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing” (United Nations,
It seems inevitable that hegemonic cultural currents may slip into the efforts, especially since the West continues to dominate in all aspects of the international world. The mere act of helping seems to say that ‘we, as the West, know better and can do what you cannot’. Non-governmental organizations have a better chance to remain free from politics because they began at a grass root level and continue to be supported by citizens, but even they find difficulties in providing help without unintended effects. Humanitarian aid in the form of materialistic necessities, like food or supplies, is often seized and controlled by military groups, who distribute them among their supporters or to attract new members. Aid in the form of economic help or loans of money are also complicated, and the risk of corruption is high. And if the money cannot solve the underlying cause, the country can also become indebted to others, furthering the problems. In order for humanitarian interventions to be truly effective, I believe that there are two conditions which must be
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...