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
Moreover, “It uses the case of Iraq to assess whether conservative interpretations of positive international law can be overridden by moral right to uphold elements of natural law that are knowable to all” (p.132). Bellamy ultimately poses a moral question of whether there is a moral “humanitarian exceptions to this rule grounded in the “just war” theory. Bellamy sets out his argument in two aspects to determine whether war has been used for a humanitarian case. He discusses the “holy war” tradition and the classical just war thinking based on natural law and comes to the conclusion that the holy war is problematic. I also agree that the holy war tradition is problematic as no proper set of rules have been set out.
Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett.
Observing this, I will look at how the concept of humanitarian intervention is inseparable form the context of politics and history, and particularly, the concept of power. This necessarily calls for a critical examination of humanitarian intervention, which is often considered a modern form of colonialism (what is colonialism?). In conclusion, I suggest that humanitarian intervention can be considered an example of just war theory, but it is debatable whether or not the ethical foundations of humanitarian intervention can be realised in the context of a power-motivated international world system. To discuss wh... ... middle of paper ... ...which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute.
Therefore modern liberals have a much more optimistic view of human beings compared to that of classical liberals. As I have stated above Lord Acton as a classical liberal believed humans to be egoistical, and as such thought that if beings got in to a position of power and authority then the government would be tyrannical. A tyrannical government is one that rules above the law, for example Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Liberals thought that to prevent tyranny a sovereign state needs to be in place, which would limit the government’s power. Power would be limited by internal and external constraints, for example constitutionalism which would mean that the population would know the extent of the government’s power.
But there are problems with this act; it allows the government to decide when to bring it into action and take it out of action. By doing this it gives the go... ... middle of paper ... ...risis. Illiberalism also suggest that because it supports the idea of straying away from liberal ideas. It supports the absence of rights and freedoms, private property and rule of law, as would the source indirectly. The source agrees with government intervention in crisis but allowing the government to intercede completely would allows them to surpass laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking rule of law.
In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism. It lacks uniformity in defining the key principles of democracy and liberalism despite being in line with the modern world where countries want inclusion in efforts to become globalized. To end my argument, the theory can be said to be a double-edged sword whereby it can lead to peace or justify war. With more succinct and clear definitions, the theory is okay in a modern world.
Although this idea may seem trivial and straightforward, it’s a main ideal of classical realism that has significant weaknesses in the current international system. The main priority in the current growing of interdependence of states is to maintain a peaceful international system. If states are motivated strictly by self-interest and pursue agreements solely based on selfish reasons, it could lead to a global catastrophe. A major point that classical realist claim is that history is cyclical. Their reasoning for making this claim is that states become too caught up in their self -interest and power that eventually they destabilize themselves when constrained to law and custom.
Thomas Jefferson called these rights "inalienable rights" and indicative of the classical liberal belief that rights do not come from the law, but that the law serves to guard natural individual rights. And government exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that defends individual ... ... middle of paper ... ...ood of their society. But to draw the today’s conclusion the lineage of contemporary Liberalism is frequently flawed, regularly contradictory and sometimes tarnished with the blood of the innocent. Nowadays, liberal values propose a type of abundant life the liberty and independence to sin and to set one's own standards in every area of life. But we harvest what we sow and the modern western societies are now reaping the rewards of this faulty "liberty" in unparalleled abortions, numerous teenage pregnancies, high rates of drug abuse, high divorce rates, and high suicide rate that stuns those who come from the very poorest nations.
Realist 's posit that in regard to humanitarian intervention, states only act in order to further their self-interest as realism believes the state is the only entity that is worth considering. Therefore, realism cannot be used as a basis to make a decision on humanitarian intervention due to the objectivity the paradigm has towards human rights and the morality states must have when considering intervention. The incapability of realist methods being implemented on the subject of humanitarian intervention is evident through considering the abundant of times realist methods have been used by states in intervention often resulting in failure and the loss of countless lives, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan being evidence of this. Liberalism on the other hand, and the belief in states being able to reach peaceful resolutions allows emphasis on moralism by many states. The evidence in humanitarian intervention being better understood through liberal methods is shown through the use of Responsibility to Protect in intervention resulting in success whereas, intervening for national and self-interests for example in Kosovo results in the losses of lives, and the failure in bringing peace.