Since the end of the cold war, the multifaceted issue of humanitarian intervention has become a highly controversial topic in the international community. The term refers to the armed intervention of one state into the internal affairs of another, without their consent, with the objective of halting gross human rights violations (Simonen, K., & Brill, 2011, p. 1) Increasingly prominent in worldwide debates, the subject of humanitarian intervention incites considerable controversy regarding its legality and legitimacy. The international community faces the ethical dilemma of whether to intervene militarily in states where a supreme humanitarian emergency is impending or currently taking place (Peraino, 1995). This essay will engage with the current debate by focusing on the legal and ethical issues concerning humanitarian intervention. It will be argued that moral obligations should outweigh sovereign equality claims, state national interest and compliance with international law. It is important that human protection purposes are the overarching motive for a military …show more content…
To intervene militarily was thought to have been the rulers’ right, if not duty, to enforce laws and protect rights beyond their realm (Nardin, 2002, p. 58). Of these universal laws, the most important is natural law - a body of basic rules considered to be inherent in human nature (Rashed, 2012; Finnis, 1980, p. 58). According to Rashed (2012), this comprising set of principles adhere to more general than distinctive norms of certain communities and justified a rulers intervention, punishment of moral wrongdoing and defense of the innocent. Few dispute the existence of natural law, with its values being recognised by the majority of communities and traditions (Haakonssen, 1996, p. 6; Rashed,
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.”
"7: Rule of Law." United States Institute of Peace. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. .
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.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
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.
Since its adoption by world leaders at the World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (herein R2P) has been hailed as a major achievement in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing that would be committed by rulers. However, some see the R2P not as an effective human right instrument for civilians’ protection as it appears to be another tool for imperialism. My position in this essay is that I believe the R2P doctrine is a considerable achievement in world politics as it signals to potential perpetrators of mass atrocities that the world would no longer stand by, but will use force when necessary to protect innocent civilians. My position is articulated as follows. First, I will present the content/principles of the R2P doctrine . Second, I will point out the legal and moral argument underpinning the R2P, particularly its military aspect. Finally I will evoke some cases where the R2P has been critical in protecting populations from mass killing and show the shortcoming of those who argue against the R2P.
In this essay, I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach the conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil. Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals moral viewpoint.
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
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-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Present legal principles are only credible if supported by strong rational and moral reasoning. The most influential moral justification for humanitarian intervention, is founded in natural law and just war theory, dating back to St Augustine. It is argued that there exist inherent and objective moral principles within humanity, irrespective of societal development. Therefore, according to just war theory, certain wars, in which such principles have been infringed upon are considered to be absolutely just (Jus ad Belum). This concept of legitimized wars in the name of justice, for example in self defense, can also be extended to humanitarian intervention. The breaking of fundamental human rights by states creates a situation whereby intervention in the defense of humanity is morally permissible. This view was expounded by philosopher Hugo Grotius, often described as a ‘father’ of modern international law, who supported the legality of humanitarian intervention in a situation “where a tyrant should inflict upon his subjects such treatment as no one is warranted in inflicting” (as cited in Chesterman
Many controversies have arisen nowadays as to whether international law is “natural law”, international law now faces considerable criticism as to its effectiveness as law and doubts as to its actual existence, and its power to bind countries .
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]
There simply is no alternate system of laws that can maintain the calm and peaceful environment for people of the world besides “law”. One can easily see the need for each and every nation to enforce its own set of rules. While all of the countries of the world have their own individuality – they all have one considerable feature which is a system of law. It has no significance what type of government is the command, the rules are all appropriate to the people in their community.