Humanitarian Intervention Is An Unacceptable Assault On Sovereignty Essay

It is therefore important to examine humanitarian intervention critically. This paper will explore the development of humanitarian intervention and the types of human rights violations that justify it. There will also be consideration given to the importance of state sovereignty and self-determination. This paper’s central argument will be that it is a valid assertion to describe humanitarian intervention as humanitarian imperialism. This argument will be supported by focusing upon principles such as the ‘doctrine to protect’ that legally permit infringement upon state sovereignty. Additionally, by focusing upon the contradictory use of military force to protect human rights and upon instances where there have been questionable intervention intentions, this paper will demonstrate why it this assertion is

Misunderstandings arise looking at Article 51 in international law that gives the right to self- defence. It is debatable as to whether this is an explicit right, only exercisable in response to armed attack or whether it allows force in response to potential attacks. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that the use of force by states is banned however this has not stopped over one hundred large conflicts since 1945. States generally use international law as an excuse and form of justification for their actions (Evans, 2006: 589). Article 2(4) declares “all members shall abstain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.” Yet the main exception is self- defence (Evans, 2006: 598). The article does not make clear what constitutes self- defence. How is a state to distinguish self-defense from hegemonic desires?

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

The war in Darfur materialized at the wrong time for the United States, Norway, and Britain, two of which are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. At the time, they were focused on ensuring the success of the Naivasha negotiations in Sudan. The Naivasha agreement, also known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was an permanent ceasefire agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/ Sudan People’s Liberation Army to end the Second Sudanese Civil War. This was long time coming because the conflict had started all the way back in 1983. The Security Council used the ‘Brahimi principal,’ which states “regional organizations take primary responsibility for the problems in their backyard” to push responsibility on to the A.U. The Brahimi principle The Security Council was glad to give someone else the responsibility of Darfur so they could focus on others tasks at hand.

Kretzmer, David. A. “The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum.” European Journal of International Law, vol. 24. No. -. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 113-114. 235–82.

Humanitarian intervention debates are constantly so compelling because it involves the three most fundamental organizational systems of human social life: law, morality and politics. In a world where every week we hear a story in the news about a civil war, the refugee crisis, starvation or a violation of human rights, states and institutions find it their responsibility to do something to improve the situation. Most of the time they find the most suitable response is military intervention, which has occurred countless times in the past. This paper will be concerned with whether human rights conditions improve or deteriorate after powerful western countries come into the picture. Military humanitarian intervention was a result of a new mindset

Creating relations between races and ethnicity's has always been vital to the success of the world. The United States and the international community have been, more often than not, late to stop violent acts against humanity. It took decades after the United Nations was created, and after a horrendous genocide in Rwanda, for the International Criminal Court to be created. Despite these two establishments created for international peace and security, crimes against humans rights are still occurring.When human rights are being violated, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies to intervene in ethnic conflicts. While others may say humanitarian intervention goes against a state’s sovereign authority,it is necessary to protect

The inquiry recommended an action plan on genocide and ethnic cleansing going forward to prevent further tragedies from occurring. Furthermore, the inquiry called for improvements to the capacity of peacekeepers in genocidal situations. In conjunction to this, there was a strong emphasis on improved protection of civilians and early warning capacities and mechanisms in order to prevent and/or slow ethnic cleansings. However the most profound introspective analysis was that of the nature of international politics and political will. The United Nations in hindsight of Rwanda stated that “political will to act should not be subject to double standards” therefore declaring that the Security Council must be prepared to act in all issues of human rights (UN DOC

When it comes to bands and singers, Imagine Dragons is definitely one of the best. They are an American indie/rock/alternative band from Las Vegas. Their variety in music, appealing sound and development is what makes them worth your time. This band should definitely be added to your playlist and here’s why:

Limitations of UN Peacekeeping have been exposed time and again. The alterations caused by these limitations have now been incorporated in the operational structure. The influence of a UN Peacekeeping Operation, too, depends on extent of involvement of various actors, whose conduct depends greatly on assessment of strategic interests. So, the characterization of United Nations as an international authority which could issue directives to enforce its mandate would be an overstatement as previous missions have demonstrated. There have been calls for overhauling the UN Peacekeeping structure. A High-level independent panel on peace operations was appointed by Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary General of United Nations in October, 2014 to review the state of UN Peacekeeping Operations. A major concern shared by all panel members which was also earmarked as an essential shift in the future process was the emphasis laid on striving towards a political solution rather than an attempt to diffuse the crisis by military means alone. Political instability has been at the roots of many conflicts, which the UN has sought to defuse by deployment of peacekeeping missions. Most missions failed to address the larger issue of restoring stability, on account of the fact that military interventions change the dynamics of regional security forever. Also, removal of a regime could lead to further deterioration of the conflict as political vacuum created by such removal and facilitating the creation of an interim proxy regime has challenges of its own. Taking out governments/rulers is perceived as the most effective immediate response to any call for intervention. The real challenge for international community arises after a successful throw over, as it pushes the country towards a political crisis. It is this situation that world/regional powers are keen on exploiting by appointing ‘friendly’ rulers, with an eye on strategic interests, which is why a concerted political solution should be the primary objective of the international community to avoid complications. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley recently hit out at the UN peacekeeping operations, calling for a clear demarcation between

These past seven years have been like no other. It has been just me and my love Odysseus. He may not like me, but I surely do like him. He has a wife and kids, but I have him captive right by my side. I don’t know if he likes being captive. I have have never really asked him because I am pretty sure he hates it. Oh well, I am fine with it which is all that matters. After caring for Odysseus for a few hours, I heard Zeus yelling for me to come talk to him. I walked to his throne and he said, “ Don’t you think it is time to let poor Odysseus go Calypso? He has been here long enough”. I thought about his question for a second. To me, it has only felt like Odysseus has been here for a day. I guess Zeus is right, I should let Odysseus go.

On October 10, 2014, the special advisors published a statement concerning the genocidal violence and acts of terrorism in Kobane, Syria. “mission and work of the UN system as a whole. UN agencies, departments and programmes contribute to the prevention of genocide by, inter alia, supporting equitable economic development and the fair distribution of political power; promoting tolerance and respect for ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, and the protection of human rights; providing humanitarian assistance; and interceding to ensure peace, security and stability.” (the UN website). When a genocide, war crimes, acts of terrorism, and crimes against humanity have taken, the UN lets the International Criminal Court (separate from UN) to investigate and press charges. The UN uses many different committees and groups to prevent the terror of genocide in all countries, around the

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits members of the United Nations the right of individual or collective self-defense preceding an armed attack.

Have you ever wondered why the seasons change? Why there’s thunder? Where the stars come from? The Greeks created their own beliefs to answer their questions. Greek mythology is a belief of ancient civilizations. Greek mythology gives information on the Olympians, Heracles, origin of Greek mythology, and more. They made up stories called myths to explain why things were the way they are. They called these collections of Greek stories, Greek mythology.

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an