Characteristics of the Current Humanitarian Intervention Debate - Report Example

Characteristics of the Current Humanitarian Intervention Debate Introduction Humanitarian Intervention (HI) has been a matter of debate ever since the development of national laws. There is no common legal definition for humanitarian intervention because the definition may be changed in accordance with the field of analysis such as law, politics, or ethics. Humanitarian intervention can be referred to “a state using military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed” (Marjanovic 2011). Although there is lack of consensus in the definition of humanitarian intervention, the threat or use of military force is a common feature of this practice. Anyhow, this practice is an intervention in the sense that a state interferes in the internal affairs of a sovereign state that has not done anything aggressive to the other. It is also clear that the intervention may not be necessarily in response to threats to the strategic interests of the state. Instead, it is often motivated by humanitarian objectives. This paper will discuss the characteristics of the current humanitarian intervention debate. Humanitarian intervention debate The current humanitarian intervention debate gives particular focus to ethical, political, and legal concerns (Holzgrefe 2003). Ethical concerns are the major characteristics of the current humanitarian intervention debate (ibid). Supporters and opponents mainly focus on the ethical aspects of humanitarian intervention to defend their views. Ludlow (1999) strongly argues that absence of this concept would promote disasters like genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Such incidents would hurt the conscience of the international community (ibid). In addition, supporters of this concept point out the growing threats of terrorism by citing the events of 9/11. At the same time, opponents argue that this concept allows global powers to abuse the weaker states. Dreadful consequences of terrorism, particularly Islamic terrorism, have persuaded global communities to take a favourable approach toward the practice of humanitarian intervention. Currently some humanitarian interventions have been going on in the Middle East against terrorism by Western powers led by United States (Coady 2002). If those interventions prove successful, the concept of humanitarian interventions may suggest that use of military power is essential to resolve political conflicts and to promote positive social transformation (ibid). In order to avoid such a situation, opponents claim that the current humanitarian interventions in the Middle East are causing great troubles to the majority innocent people. As the scholar point out, HI has multi-dimensional implications. It is clear that HI is often initiated by Complex Political Emergencies (CPEs). The emergence of globalisation has resulted in changes in the architecture of states, meaning of the sovereignity, nature of political engagements, and the role of arms. A group of people argue that HI is capable of bringing together varied parties and social forces in novel ways whereas others hold the view that HI is an expression of global governance (Duffield 2001; 2008). However, still there are many conflicts among regulators regarding what type of interventions can be considered humanitarian. Some experts suggest that an intervention becomes humanitarian when it is driven by sentiment of humanity and the desire to improve the well-being of another state and its people. From the viewpoint of some others, an intervention is considered humanitarian if it addresses what is thought to be the violation of universal human rights. Another view in this regard is that an intervention can be considered humanitarian if the intervening states are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to achieve the stated humanitarian objectives. Humanitarian Assistance (HA) is a concept associated with HI; but they are different in scope. While HI implies the intrusion of a state into the territory of another, HA refers to the provision of relief (such as provision of food and shelter) with the proper consent of the target state. A notable contrasting characteristic of the current HI debate is the contradiction in the scope of the concepts humanitarianism and intervention. Issues like slow death due to ‘poverty, malnutrition, and political as well as economic mismanagement’ are not generally considered as key humanitarian concerns. The HI is specifically political in nature and is focused on the state. Hence, a group of people argue that HI is turning out to be just a way of expressing political interests of a state over another sovereign state. Another contrasting perspective is the tension between fundamental/universal human rights and sovereignity of a state. These two elements have great and equal significance. HI would hurt the sovereignity of a state; at the same time, universal human rights may be violated in the absence of HI. Currently, HI is considered in the statist way of thinking. A group of people are of the view that HIs occurs only when human right violations become a direct output of a state’s outrageous abuse of its power. Hence, they argue that such interventions do not hurt the sovereignity of a state. However, opponents of current HI practices claim that there must be proper balance between human rights and a state’s sovereignty. According to Bajoria ((2011), in order to address this challenge, the Canadian government and several other bodies announced the formation of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. This commission specifically works to address the international community’s responsibility to protect in the face of severe human right violations while accepting sovereignty of states (ibid). Considering the importance of a state’s sovereignity, the UN Charter states that intervention in another state’s internal affairs is permissible only when elements of threats to international security exist (Danish Institute of International Affairs 1999). It also requires that all types of such HIs should be authorised by UN, which acts as the representative of the international community. Another major characteristic of this current debate is that emergence of CPEs and humanitarian interventions are linked to the pressures of globalisation. To illustrate, globalisation promotes the development of a global economy and international relations. Evidently, HI plays a significant role in strengthening economic and political interdependence. Referring to this, supporters argue that humanitarian interventions are the part of strengthening international relations and political co-operation. Therefore, issues associated with sovereignty and HI are cited as the implications of a new emerging world. In order to understand the real meaning of sovereignty, there must be a shift of primacy from the security of state to the security of people. It is observed that the conflicts regarding HI exist among global nations too. As Waal and Omaar (2012) point out, when countries like the United States support this practice, some states in Asia and Africa consider HI as a threat to their sovereignty. The UN Security Council supports this concept under certain circumstances invoking the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ (as cited in ‘Humanitarian Intervention?’). Some countries like Brazil, Russian, India, and China refrained from voting on the US resolution for several reasons and it greatly reflected the sensitive nature of the issue (Okhovat 2011). Experts anticipate that the debate over HI would get intensified in the future as it is a matter of states’ sovereignty. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that the current humanitarian intervention debate has many sensitive characteristics. The major theme of this debate is that it is centred on the sovereignty of states. Globally recognised bodies including UN Security Council have identified international communities’ responsibility to protect human rights. The major conflict is how to intervene in human right violations while respecting the sovereignty of states. Opponents of this concept strongly argue that humanitarianism and intervention are two contrasting terms and therefore this idea intends to execute the interests of global powers over the Third World. References Bajoria, J. (2011) ‘The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention’. Council on Foreign Relations. [online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Coady, C.A. J. (2002) ‘The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention’. United States Institute of Peace. [Online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Danish Institute of International Affairs. (1999) ‘Humanitarian Intervention Legal and Political Aspects’. [online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Holzgrefe, H. L & Keohane, R. O (Eds.) (2003) Humanitarian intervention: ethical, legal and political dilemmas. Cambridge University Press. Humanitarian Intervention? GPF. [online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Ludlow, D. R. L. (1999) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and the Rwandan Genocide’. The Journal of Conflict Studies, 19 (1). Marjanovic, M. (2011) ‘Is Humanitarian War the Exception?’ Ludwig von Mises Institute. [Online] available at < http://mises.org/daily/5160/Is-Humanitarian-War-the-Exception> [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Okhovat, S. (2011) The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform. CPACS Working Paper No. 15/1. [online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Waal, A. D & Omaar, R. (2012) Can Military Intervention Be "Humanitarian"? MER. [online] available at [accessed 13 Feb 2013] Duffield (2001; 2008) Given file. Read More