Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on classical realism in international relations
Strength and weakness of realist theory of international relations
Critic of realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the following essay I will discuss aspects of international relations relating to humanitarian intervention and how they affect a nation’s responsibilities in the international arena. I will be drawing parallels to historical examples of intervention and to recent world events. I will inspect the classical realist notion of non-intervention and sovereignty and another newer line of thought, more adapted to the modern system. What I hope to bring forth in this paper is a clearer understanding of the situation and the responsibilities of the actors in current international relations in regard to humanitarian rights and intervention.
Today the world stands more connected than ever before in human history. Nations form economic empires. Lines of trade run intertwined. Influence and interests span the globe. Power is global. With this brave new world come new responsibilities. No longer, can state sovereignty, force rigid impenetrable boundaries between states and command sole responsibility for their citizens.
But still national sovereignty in classical international law is untouchable. With the philosophical roots of international relations established with the treaty of Westphalia 1648 (Plant 1995: 190) According to it all sovereign rulers have absolute authority within their nations and no state has the right to intervene in the domestic matters of other sovereign states.
This idea has been the very building block of modern international relations since 1945 and the establishment of the UN. The UN Charter clearly prohibits the use of force in international relations to threaten the “territorial integrity or political independence of any state “(United Nations 1945: Chapter 1 Article 2.4). This idea is so concrete in i...
... middle of paper ...
...tract=462523 [Accessed 15 March 2011]
Plant, R. 1995 ‘Rights Rules and world Order’ pp 190-218 in Desai, M and Redfern, P. (eds.) Global Governance: Ethics and Economics of the World Order, London: Continuum Publishing
Slater, J and Nardin, T. 1986 ‘Nonintervention and Human Rights.’ The Journal of Politics, 48(1):86-96
Stacy, H. 2007 ‘Humanitarian Intervention and Relational Sovereignty,’ pp 89-104 in Lee, Steven P. (Ed.) Intervention, Terrorism, and Torture: Contemporary Challenges to Just War Theory, New York: Springer
Thomas, C . 1994 ‘Human Rights and Intervention: A Case for Caution.’ Irish Studies in International Affairs, 5:15-28.
United Nations, 2011. Charter of the United Nations 194,. [Online]
Available at;
[Accessed 09 March 2011].
Walzer, M. 1977 Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books
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.
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
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.
...erty and Human Rights? Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 19, No. 1 Spring 2013. Web 14 April 2014
Hayden, Patrick. "13. Bentham." Philosophy of Human Rights. Paragon House, 2001. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <https://courses.ryerson.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-2707097-dt-content-rid-2644870_2/courses/phl400_f12_01/Jeremy%20Bentham%20-%20Anarchical%20Fallacies.pdf>
Just War and Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (2):160-81. Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987) The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Utilitarianism and other essays.
...ty exclusive of external authorities. Second, in terms of domestic sovereignty, for fairly long time the political structures of states have been following the global trends, from monarchy, to republics, to democratic states most recently. From above we can see that both domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty are facing challenges all the time, which are not new, but characteristic from time to time. Since sovereignty is the core value of a state, it is reasonable to conclude that nation-state is challenged by globalization but its power is not undermined.
113-117 Human Rights: Politics and Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
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”.
Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell. Political Theory. 27 (6), 84. [online] Available from: [Accessed 28 February 2011]
Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and the Human Interests”, International Studies Quarterly, No. 25, 1981, pp. 204-36
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...