What Should Be the Goal of a Humanitarian Intervention - Essay Example

GOAL OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION by Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor University City/State Date What Should Be The Goal Of Humanitarian Intervention? Introduction Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the action of the state using military force to alleviate or even end violations of human rights in another state (Holzgrefe & Keohane 2003). The intervention applies where the violations in question are a perpetration of state or in cases where the state is failing in protecting civilians against the violation of their rights. Teson (2011) states that cases of humanitarian intervention are on the rise despite the presence of regional and international human rights bodies whose aim is to ensure that states observe the basic rights f their citizens. He further asserts that humanitarian intervention in most cases presents a dilemma to the concerned states since it involves an aspect of violating the sovereignty of the state by sending a military force into its territory. Thus, in many cases, humanitarian intervention is done against the wishes of the oppressive state hence the question of the goals of such an operation arises. Such a concern is meant to ensure that rogue states do not use the excuse of a humanitarian intervention to pursue their interests in other states. The need to ensure that humanitarian intervention is limited to preserving the rights of an oppressed population leads to the examination of what should constitute the goals of humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention has three characteristics, which include the possibility of use of military force, the need to protect the rights of individuals, as well as the aspect of interference with the sovereignty of a nation. However, the most overbearing of them all is the protection of the rights of individuals in the state. Goals of Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian intervention should be aimed at establishing and maintaining peace. Nadin (2006) argues that modernity has brought the world together and tied the fate of humanity in that that events occurring in one country can have dire consequences to another country. As such, he opines that there is a need for the international community to ensure that maintenance of stability among the international community is given priority. In order for this stability to be maintained, he further suggests that countries are facing the dilemma of taking military action or just remaining oblivious to such violations. However, they later intervene in order to protect civilians from their own governments, as well as ensure that instability does not spread into other countries. This action shows that the maintenance of peace is a clear goal of humanitarian intervention. A major goal of humanitarian intervention should be to alleviate human suffering. Brandan and Trim (2011) opine that climatic change has brought negative externalities like destructive floods or even drought. This intervention, therefore calls for the well off countries to assist those facing these challenges to ensure that the citizenry in these countries have access to basic human needs like food, clothing, and shelter. In support of this view, Kurth (2006) states that the occurrence of very destructive environmental disasters may render the state incapable of providing the needs of its population. Hence, this inability gives way to humanitarian interventions whose goal is to alleviate human suffering. He then observes that a case in point is the Indian Ocean Tsunami whose extensive destruction led to many states like Haiti becoming incapable of providing help to their citizens Humanitarian intervention should be aimed at protecting the rights of a nation to determine its fate without the citizens being oppressed by the ruling elite. Farer (2003) writes that in many countries, dictatorial regimes have taken over leadership. He observes that in order to eliminate any opposition to their rule, they result into human rights violations, for instance elimination of populations, which they deem to be a threat. In this regard, he suggests the global community should result into humanitarian intervention in such countries. In support of this, he suggests that such an intervention serves to protect the rights of the population in these countries as well as acting as a deterrent to such violations (Farer, 2003). As such, humanitarian intervention is justifiable especially when aimed at protecting a nation from its rulers (Bass 2008). The protection is necessary since such oppression may lead to the rise of a failed state, which in itself presents a grave case of humanitarian need. A major goal of humanitarian intervention should be to stem extremism, especially in cases where it is hampering the peaceful coexistence of communities without any meaningful action by the government. Chesterman (2001) opines that governments, at times, find themselves at the mercy of armed groups with stronger and better-equipped forces than the military. He further states that some governments fail to accept the weakness of their military in the face of such armed groups leading to massive suffering of the civilian population. Where this weakness is evident, Chesterman (2001) suggests that there is justification for any member of the international community to intervene for the sake of protecting the civilian population from aggression. However, he also warns that the conduct of such an intervention should be subject to international laws. This condition is necessary in order to prevent any party from rushing into such interventions for motives other than eliminating the threat posed by such extremism. Humanitarian intervention should be aimed at protecting a people’s right to their property and livelihoods. This intervention should be effected in cases where the state is directly or indirectly facilitating the denial of livelihood, for instance through mass displacement of populations from their land in favor of the politically correct ethnic groups. Simms and Trim (2011) note that there have been cases of ethnic cleansing. These cases are whereby a rogue state facilitates the mass killings and displacement of entire communications in order to shape the demographics characteristics of a certain region to the whims of the ruling elite. He further suggests that in such instances, it is the responsibility of any member of international community to intervene humanitarily for the sake of the oppressed. However, he warns that a state should result to such an eventuality only after obtaining concrete evidence regarding such a situation. This condition serves as a safeguard against any violations of humanitarian intervention by regimes with ill intent. A crucial goal of humanitarian intervention should be to protect an oppressed population from the state. Bass (2008) argues that the excuse of sovereignty being peddled by oppressive regimes is overshadowed by the fact that this sovereignty is a right that comes with an obligation. This obligation as he opines is that of dual responsibility that requires the guardians of state power to respect and observe the rights of their subjects as well as being in line with international rules and regulations. These international requirements regard the exercise of state authority and the need to preserve human rights (Moore 2007). As such, sovereignty as Bass (2008) observes does not guarantee the state immunity for atrocities committed against its subjects nor does it provide an automatic line of defense against impending humanitarian intervention by nations of goodwill. Humanitarian intervention ought to be aimed against rogue states intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, for instance nuclear weapons. Walzer (2002) claims that the community of nations is under constant threat from state sponsors of terrorism. Such states he opines are, usually involved in the proliferation of arms among terrorists and extremists besides sponsoring violence within their countries as well as in other countries. He suggests that in case weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of such states, large populations of people would be under threat. Wheeler (2000) supports this observation by stating that if regimes in such states are allowed to develop such weapons, the probability of nuclear-armed terrorists will rise significantly. As such, Wheeler (2000) concludes that there is a need for protection of humanity from such a threat. He suggests that the community of nations has the obligation of effecting humanitarian interventions in a bid to halt the development of such weapons. Such intervention could be in the form of pre-emptive strikes to destroy the nuclear capabilities of the regime in question. Besides that, a major goal of humanitarian intervention should be to bolster up the capability of a country to deal with a crisis in its territory. Choi (2013) notes that there have been cases of democratically elected regimes being confronted by uprisings that are beyond their military capability. He further observes that the current instability threat facing several countries in the Middle East can be attributed to the inferiority of these countries’ armies. This inferiority is in comparison with the forces of extremists like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. A case in point is the military strength of Iraq vis a vis the strength of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which has destabilized much of Iraq. In such a case, he suggests that it is the obligation of the community of nations to intervene in a humanitarian way in order to bolster up the strength of the affected countries to deal with their challenges. A major goal of humanitarian intervention should be the protection of the global order in respect to internationally recognized obligations of the states to the individual citizens. For instance, Choi (2013) suggests that the voice of the citizens should never be repressed in regards to the mode of governance that they prefer. A case in point is the Arab Spring whereby he observes that in a bid to remain in power against popular opinion; oppressive regimes turned the guns on their subjects. Thus, this gave way to the emergence of humanitarian crises in those countries for instance Libya. Eventually, Choi (2013) notes that the situation ended up warranting a humanitarian intervention by a coalition of European countries. However, Teson (2011) opines that such intervention needs to be done whole-heartedly and proper planning concerning post-intervention period should be made. Otherwise, he warns that the intervention could result into worsening of the situation due to the resulting absence of government, as is the case with Libya. This eventuality shows that there is an imminent need to carry out humanitarian interventions in a bid to protect the global order. Humanitarian intervention can also be aimed at challenging the existence of a state. Gulati and Khose (2013) observe that there are cases whereby continued oppression of a certain segment of the population leads to the need for secession. Thus, such a case may lead to liberation efforts by the victims of oppression leading to a liberation war that can result into a humanitarian crisis. They also state where the state denies such victims the right to self-determination, and then duty falls on the shoulders of the international community to facilitate the settlement of such a crisis. In the case of no peaceful solution, humanitarian intervention is necessitated in order ensure that the oppressed get their freedom and hence their opportunity to self-determination. This liberation was the case in Serbia whereby the oppressed population of Kosovo resulted into liberation efforts. These efforts later led to a declaration of independence. The resulting humanitarian crises eventually led to a humanitarian intervention and as such, the victims of oppression got their chance to self-determination. A major goal of humanitarian intervention can be to curb the excesses of the state in foreign lands. Stakes in the international community can lead to a state privileging its citizens through the oppression of the subjects of a weaker state (Brenfors & Maxe 2000). This oppression can be in terms of sponsoring rebellions in order to exploit resources or even prop up puppet leadership in those countries. Such actions by the stronger state may cause a humanitarian crisis in the weaker state, for instance instability or even displacement of segments of the population. Thus, influencing the affairs of an independent country adversely can come at a great cost to the victims as well as the perpetrator state. Brenfors and Maxe (2000) suggests that in such a situation, the community of nations has a duty to protect the rights of the weaker state hence a possibility of humanitarian intervention being put into effect. They further argue that the justification of such an intervention would be above board especially if other efforts to curb this oppression are not respected by the oppressing state. Besides that, a vital goal of humanitarian intervention could also be to express the dissatisfaction and the concerns of a certain state towards oppression and injustice in another jurisdiction. Welsh (2004) notes that the advancement of the global village means that citizens in far away countries are concerned by state barbarism and suffering of the citizens of other countries. This concern is similar to the concern of those suffering in their country. This suffering raises the need for the international community to express solidarity with the victims of oppression by joining in their struggle. This solidarity could be in terms of humanitarian intervention in a bid to preserve the rights of the victims. Another goal of humanitarian intervention should be to enhance conflict resolution leading to the possibility of dialogue (Brandan & Trim 2011). In cases whereby a state is facing a rebellion from a section of its subjects, the possibility of dialogue is real if that state is willing to put the concerns of the rebels into consideration. He further explains that such a scenario can call for a humanitarian intervention in the form of military force from a neutral country to serve as a peacekeeping mission. However, this is possible on the condition that the force be acceptable to both parties. The presence of such a force at the ceasefire line promotes the likelihood of both parties observing the cease-fire hence leading to the possibility of dialogue. He further states that this is a very accommodative form of humanitarian intervention since it raises the possibility of the oppressor and their victim reaching an amicable position. Humanitarian intervention can also be aimed at curbing illegal activities originating from another country. This intervention can be done especially in a case whereby the state in question is incapable of stopping the illegality in question. Weiss (2007) opines that piracy in the Indian Ocean has had adverse effects on the shipping industry. He further explains that in a bid to curb piracy, several countries including the United States of America carried out military interventions on the Somalia coast since it is the main breeding ground for the pirates. Such intervention was in terms of patrols by ships, rescue missions for piracy victims as well as military strikes on pirate locations. These patrols served to decrease piracy cases and once again opened this vital shipping route for international trade. As such, it is very clear that a humanitarian intervention can be aimed at maintaining international law hence reduction in international crimes. A valid goal of humanitarian intervention could be the protection of strategic interests of the state in another jurisdiction. Kuperman (2004) observes that such an intervention is likely in cases whereby the nation hosting those interests is incapable of protecting them. As such, this calls for the owner nation to take action and prevent the loss of such assets by securing them through a humanitarian intervention. This action can occur, for instance in cases whereby foreign military bases in conflict zones are facing the threat of capture by adverse forces. It could also occur where significant numbers of foreigners are under the threat of attack by elements of the host nation of which that country cannot effectively protect them. Hence, such a situation can herald a humanitarian intervention whose clear goal would be to protect the strategic interests of a certain country and its citizens. Conclusion It is crucial to note that though there are numerous goals for basing humanitarian interventions; all revolve around the need to protect the rights of individual citizens from any violation. Such violation could be but not limited to state excesses as well as the actions of elements within the state. In addition, humanitarian intervention has its justification from the inability of a certain state to meet a certain obligation to its citizens, for instance protection of their rights. Therefore, opponents of humanitarian intervention could be better off advising oppressive states that the most viable solution is to observe the rule of law both locally and internationally. Of importance to note is the fact that any humanitarian intervention shows a response of the citizens of one country to the suffering of citizens in another country. Such a response shows that the humanity is striving to fulfill the obligation of policing itself in order to avoid any cases of mass atrocities. Hence, it is clearly acceptable that humanitarian intervention will be here for a long time to come. Reference List Bass, G. J 2008, Freedom's battle: the origins of humanitarian intervention, New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Brenfors, M & Maxe Petersen, M 2000, ‘The legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention: a defence’, Nordic Journal of International Law vol. 69, pp. 449-499. Chesterman, S 2001, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Choi, S. W 2013, ‘What determines US humanitarian intervention?’ Conflict Management and Peace Science vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 121-139 Farer, T.J 2003,‘Humanitarian Intervention Before and After 9/11: Legality and legitimacy’, in J.L Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Gulati, J & Khosa, I 2013, ‘Humanitarian intervention: to protect state sovereignty’,. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy vol. 41, pp. 397-416. Holzgrefe, J. L & Keohane, R 2003, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Holzgrefe, J. L & Keohane, R. O 2003, Humanitarian intervention: ethical, legal, and political dilemmas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kuperman, A 2004, .Humanitarian Hazard: Revisiting Doctrines of Intervention, Harvard International Review vol. 26, no.1, pp.64-68 Kurth, J 2006, ‘Humanitarian Intervention After Iraq: Legal ideas vs. Military Realities’, Orbis vol. 50, no.1, pp. 87–101 Moore, J 2007, ‘Deciding Humanitarian Intervention’, Social Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 169-200 Nardin, T & Williams, M. S 2006, Humanitarian intervention, New York, New York University Press. Simms, B & Trim, D.J.B 2011, (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: A History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Teson, F.R 2011, ‘Humanitarian intervention: Loose ends’, Journal of Military Ethics vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 192-212 Weiss, T 2007, Conceptual building blocks’ in humanitarian intervention: Ideas in action, Cambridge, Polity. Walzer, M 2002, .Arguing for Humanitarian Intervention’ in Nicolaus Mills and Kira Brunner (eds), The New Killing Fields: Massacre and the Politics of Intervention, Basic Books, New York. Welsh, J. M 2004, Humanitarian intervention and international relations, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Welsh, J 2001, ’Taking Consequences Seriously: Objections to Humanitarian Intervention’, in Jennifer Welsh (ed) Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 52-68 Wheeler, N.J 2000, Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More

Farer (2003) writes that in many countries, dictatorial regimes have taken over leadership. He observes that in order to eliminate any opposition to their rule, they result into human rights violations, for instance elimination of populations, which they deem to be a threat. In this regard, he suggests the global community should result into humanitarian intervention in such countries. In support of this, he suggests that such an intervention serves to protect the rights of the population in these countries as well as acting as a deterrent to such violations (Farer, 2003).

As such, humanitarian intervention is justifiable especially when aimed at protecting a nation from its rulers (Bass 2008). The protection is necessary since such oppression may lead to the rise of a failed state, which in itself presents a grave case of humanitarian need. A major goal of humanitarian intervention should be to stem extremism, especially in cases where it is hampering the peaceful coexistence of communities without any meaningful action by the government. Chesterman (2001) opines that governments, at times, find themselves at the mercy of armed groups with stronger and better-equipped forces than the military.

He further states that some governments fail to accept the weakness of their military in the face of such armed groups leading to massive suffering of the civilian population. Where this weakness is evident, Chesterman (2001) suggests that there is justification for any member of the international community to intervene for the sake of protecting the civilian population from aggression. However, he also warns that the conduct of such an intervention should be subject to international laws. This condition is necessary in order to prevent any party from rushing into such interventions for motives other than eliminating the threat posed by such extremism.

Humanitarian intervention should be aimed at protecting a people’s right to their property and livelihoods. This intervention should be effected in cases where the state is directly or indirectly facilitating the denial of livelihood, for instance through mass displacement of populations from their land in favor of the politically correct ethnic groups. Simms and Trim (2011) note that there have been cases of ethnic cleansing. These cases are whereby a rogue state facilitates the mass killings and displacement of entire communications in order to shape the demographics characteristics of a certain region to the whims of the ruling elite.

He further suggests that in such instances, it is the responsibility of any member of international community to intervene humanitarily for the sake of the oppressed. However, he warns that a state should result to such an eventuality only after obtaining concrete evidence regarding such a situation. This condition serves as a safeguard against any violations of humanitarian intervention by regimes with ill intent. A crucial goal of humanitarian intervention should be to protect an oppressed population from the state.

Bass (2008) argues that the excuse of sovereignty being peddled by oppressive regimes is overshadowed by the fact that this sovereignty is a right that comes with an obligation. This obligation as he opines is that of dual responsibility that requires the guardians of state power to respect and observe the rights of their subjects as well as being in line with international rules and regulations. These international requirements regard the exercise of state authority and the need to preserve human rights (Moore 2007).

As such, sovereignty as Bass (2008) observes does not guarantee the state immunity for atrocities committed against its subjects nor does it provide an automatic line of defense against impending humanitarian intervention by nations of goodwill. Humanitarian intervention ought to be aimed against rogue states intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, for instance nuclear weapons. Walzer (2002) claims that the community of nations is under constant threat from state sponsors of terrorism.

Read More