Introduction:
The paradigm of human security emerged after that cold-war era when it was thought that humans should be given more importance than the state and hence the security of the former would be a direct consequence of the later. It focuses to support individuals by means of a people-centered approach for overcoming disparities that disturb human safety.
Humanitarian intervention motivated by human security is an important aspect for any developed country to ponder upon, if it is devising its international policy. In this paper the author will try to look at the pros and cons of such an intervention.
In a situation of peace, a state is responsible for the security of the people, but on the contrary when a state turns against its own people and violates the norms of human rights, does it become the responsibility of the international community to breach the sovereignty? If Responsibility to Protect (R2P) approach results in a safer society or it results in causing more disparities? The author will try to approach these questions in relation to a case study on UN resolution on Libyan humanitarian intervention.
Hypothesis:
Human Security is at stake due to Humanitarian Intervention
Human Security Approach:
Individuals would not be defenseless if their necessities and needs are identified by their governments, they may not feel threat to their livesor to their survival. In an ideal world the governments would and should fulfill the requirements of its individuals so that the scope of threat and insecurity does not exist.
Humanitarian intervention:
Humanitarian intervention is termed as the use of military power to intervene on another state without the endorsement of its rulers for the sake of safeguard and defense for civili...
... middle of paper ...
...are committed by the regime in opponents to its civiliansthis situation where the internal violence of regimes cannot handle all the severe condition then the mandatory power like United Nations security Council may give permission of military interventions to intervene on those areas where the situation needs to be intervened or where the treat of aggression, violence appear and danger to international peace and stability. Security Council can only allow the use of force or military intervention for the goals of peace and stability to stop violence. Humanitarian intervention is the biggest threat to human security. There are a huge amount of mass atrocities occurred due to humanitarian intervention. There are a lot of human rights violations like women rights violation, dozens of causalities as well as destruction of infrastructure occurred by these interventions.
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 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.
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
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
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.
First of all, the R2P clearly states that: i) the State has the primary responsibility to protect its population from heinous human rights abuses such as genocide, war crimes, crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing; ii) the international community has the responsibility to assist States in fulfilling their primary responsibility as indicated in point i) and as such, it should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from those crimes; iii) however, when a State fails to protect its own populations or is the actual perpetrator of such crimes against its populations, the international community must be prepared to ta...
The RP2 is based on promoting interconnectedness between nations that can no longer perform what actions that state desires, which in a way it destroys the idea of “state sovereignty” which will be the basis for change if executed right. The Responsibility to Protect purposes to reframe “the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states” (Responsibility to protect, 2001) Allowing sovereign states to collectively intervene without another states approval simplifies interventions, because there is no need for approval or debate amongst the security council. RP2 is a broader liberalist vision of human protection and assigned responsibilities. It also reframes the notion of state sovereignty because instead of international communities sitting idly aside while genocides and civil wars occur, they are forced to act if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfil the basic fundamental rights of their citizens.
76-122). Fixdal, M., & Smith, D. (1998) Humanitarian intervention and war Mershon International Studies Review, 42, 283-312. Fussell, (1989) Wartime, chapter 18 (pp. 267-298. Gartner, Scott.
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 ...
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
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...
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
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