Humanitarian intervention can be defined as an ‘activity taken up by a state, a group within a state, a group of states, or an international organisation which interferes coercively in the domestic affairs of another state’. (Vincent, 1974, p.3) Now, depending of the school of thought, this can be seen in either a positive or negative light. For those who subscribe to the solidarity theory, the idea of humanitarian intervention is perfectly viable as those who favour the theory advocate in the enforcement of an international law that can combat the violation of human rights for instance. On the other hand, pluralist theorists feel the idea of intervention, humanitarian or not, is simply impermissible. Nevertheless, the liberal argument seems best to describe the concept of humanitarian intervention, arguing from the stance that it prevents or ends the abuse of human rights. In critical response to liberal thought on humanitarian intervention, some would argue that not only does intervention undermine the sovereignty of states, it also breaks down the required conditions for international order. (Ayoob, 2002, p.84)The effectiveness of humanitarian intervention is also called to question with several recent interventions deemed to be failures. The use of military constitutes a huge part of the problem and brings about the need for change in the humanitarian intervention process.
PART 1 – LIBERAL ARGUMENT FOR HUMANARIAN INTERVENTION
The liberal argument is no doubt the best to explain the reasons behind and the benefits of humanitarian intervention. Famous liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, expressed that there was a distinction between going into aggressive wars for selfish reasons and going to war in order to prevent atrocities wh...
... middle of paper ...
...e state is the main argument against its existence. (Spalding, 2013, p.5) Realist international theorists are in effect non-interventionists as they as believe the international society to be a state of anarchy and as such value order way above morality. In their opinion, for there to be order, states must be sovereign and their sovereignty respected. The highest power remains the state, it is on these grounds that universal human rights are rejected as well as the need for humanitarian intervention. Pluralists also add to the argument the claim that plurality of international politics is an indication that it is impossible for a universal standard of human rights to be agreed upon. The non-interventionist arguments stands on the foundation of the rejection of universal human rights and the importance of the state’s sovereignty over morality. (Spalding, 2013, p.6)
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.
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
The United States of America proudly present themselves as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the main liberal architect whose role, became more significant in the post-Cold War world, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the institution of the so called “New World Order”₁ paired with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy in a global scale and pursue “(…) America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace.” ₂
“ Humanitarianism aspire to relief victims of human-made and natural disaster, but for many it does not end with the termination of emergency. Many aspire to transform the structures that endanger populations” (Fassin
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
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
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
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
Barnett, M., Weiss, T.G. (Ed.). (2008). Humanitarianism in question: Politics, power, ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...