Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas - Literature review Example

Brown (2003) defines humanitarian intervention as the use of military force by international actors, against another state, for the main purpose of putting to an end the human rights violations that are being sponsored by the state or country under consideration. However, it is important to denote that humanitarian intervention does not only include the use of military force for purposes of protecting the vulnerable, there are other non-military methods of intervention, and this includes international sanctions, and humanitarian aid. On this basis, Chesterman (2001) defines humanitarian intervention as a situation whereby there is the use of military and non-military methods to protect mass suffering of people within sovereign borders. On this basis, the main aim of humanitarian intervention is to prevent mass atrocities, and protect the vulnerable people from exploitation. It is therefore not a gross violation of the sovereignty of a state, and this is because the intentions of humanitarian intervention are noble. It is important to denote that a standard definition of this term humanitarian intervention does not exist. The variations in the definition of humanitarian intervention comprises of whether the host country agrees or opposes the intervention, or whether this intervention received the approval of the UN Security Council, or whether the humanitarian intervention under consideration is only limited to punishing the state that carries out the atrocities (Hehir, 2008). Despite the existence of these variations in the definition of humanitarian intervention, it is important to denote that there is a general agreement that humanitarian intervention has the following characteristics (Kernot, 2006, p. 53); There is the use of military force as its main feature. It involves interfering with the internal affairs of a given state by sending soldiers into the territory of the state under consideration, which has not involved itself with an act of hostility against another nation. The intervention under consideration is always provoked by humanitarian objectives, and not a threat to the strategic interests of the countries that are involved in carrying out the intervention. In the perspective of Kofi Annan, humanitarian intervention is a moral imperative, and it does not involve a gross violation of states sovereignty. It is important to denote that this issue of intervention is not a new phenomenon. During the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, people justified the need to go to war as a method of protecting the rights of individuals, and upholding the law (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). Various leaders and rulers had the duty and right to enforce certain universal norms and laws beyond their areas of jurisdiction (Hehir, 2013). Examples of these universal laws consisted of the natural law, which were precepts that did bind men through reason and rationality. This included respect for human rights, such as the right to life, freedom of speech, etc. These natural laws are general, and do not relate to a particular community since they apply to everybody living within the planet (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). On this basis, it was the responsibility of moral leaders and rulers to punish anyone who violated these laws, and hence protect the innocent individuals. The principle of common morality, which emanates from natural law, provides a moral ground for this concept of humanitarian intervention. The main teachings of common morality denote that people have a right to act in a particular situation, not as a member of a specific community, but as a member of a human community. On this basis, a common moral world exists, which is responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals wherever they are (Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, 1996). This idea of a common morality emanates from a critical reflection of customs and laws, and it is based on the concept of reason. According to the principles of natural law, there are some universal standards upon which people must live. Each and every person must respect others, and they must provide support to each other, when they are in need. On this basis, there exists a link between common morality, and the principles of humanitarian intervention. This is because almost all basic rights of an individual can be categorized as universal moral rights. This includes the right to life, freedom of worship, and the right of a political representation. On this basis, if there is any oppression in any area of the world, then states have a right and duty to act, in order to protect the rights of people who are being oppressed. This is the duty and right of the leaders of these states, as part and parcel of the human community. The concept of humanitarian intervention comprises of two important principles, which are the principle of beneficence, and that of dignity. According to the principle of dignity, states would determine the nature of transgressions and atrocities, and whether there is a need of intervening in order to protect and save lives. The principle of beneficence on the other hand denotes that leaders or people cannot stay idle, while bad leaders are committing injustices to their civilians on a large scale. However, there are a number of scholars who are against this principle of humanitarian intervention. According to this authors, humanitarian interventions lead to a violation of a given states sovereignty, and it also undermines then internal struggles for liberty within a host country. Scholars, further goes on to denote that it is difficult to sustain freedom gained through foreign intervention. In as much as these arguments might be valid, these scholars tend to ignore the urgency and the need of intervening in the situation under consideration. Take for example the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which in a span of three months; nearly half a million people were killed. These were mainly Tutsis, who were unarmed, and did not have the capability of organizing an army to defend themselves. However, moral principles provide guidance on the various choices that world leaders have in intervening in situations where there is a gross violation of human rights (Bellamy, 2006). The choice of which method to use in acting to a particular situation requires wisdom, good judgment, and prudence. This is while considering the legal and political implications of the interventions under consideration. On this basis, the argument that humanitarian interventions are a moral imperative is correct. In order to advance this moral concept, there are a number of humanitarian interventions that have taken place in the world. One such example is the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO. In this conflict, the government of Milosevic aimed at oppressing the Albanians of Kosovo, killing them indiscriminately (Cronogue, 2012, p. 136). This led to an armed conflict between the government of Milosevic, and that of the people of Kosovo, and with the massacre of 45 civilians in Racak, NATO decided to intervene for purposes of ending the war, and restoring order in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. The main goals of NATO in this intervention was to remove the military personnel of Yugoslavia from Kosovo, to safely return all the refugees and displaced people to Kosovo, to station a UN peace keeping mission in Kosovo, and to put an end to the military actions of Yugoslavia, against Kosovo. It is important to denote that the United Nations did not approve of this humanitarian intervention in Kosovo, and NATO, decided to intervene any way. NATO had the backing of United States of America, who provided machineries and expertise to use in the bombing. Another example of a humanitarian intervention was in 2011, which occurred in Libya. The difference between the Libyan humanitarian intervention and the one that occurred in Kosovo is based on the fact that in Libya, the United Nations Security Council approved of it. The main aim of this intervention was to prevent the government of Gaddafi from bombing civilians during the Libyan civil war. The United Nations aimed at imposing a no-go fly zone, with the purpose of preventing the armies of Gaddafi from using their military aircrafts to bomb innocent civilians, and rebel strong holds. Gibbs (2009) denotes that in these two circumstances, people were protected from mass atrocities and deaths. On this note, the United Nations and NATO managed to achieve the objectives of humanitarian interventions, that is, protecting the rights and privileges of the vulnerable. In as much as NATO has intervened in various circumstances, the right body, which should authorize and engage in humanitarian intervention, is the United Nations. However, dealing with issues that involve humanitarian interventions is a great challenge to the United Nations (Welsh, 2004). This is because the charter of the United Nations provides for the right of states. On this basis, the number of times that the United Nations has given an okay to humanitarian interventions is few. In as much as the United Nations charter recognizes the rights of states, the same charter also recognizes the basic rights of human beings. In case of an extreme violation of an individual’s human rights, the UN charter provides for a humanitarian intervention (Wood, 1996). On this basis, there was a need of intervening in Libya, to prevent President Gaddafi from killing his own people. This is despite the 1991 resolution by the United Nations General Assembly to respect the territorial integrity, sovereignty and national unity of various countries in the world. By interpreting this resolution, it would mean that humanitarian intervention could only be provided when the state under consideration appeals for help. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter gives the UN an authority to intervene in circumstances whereby there is a breach and threat of peace, or an action of aggression. This article denotes that the UN will take measures and actions as outlined in articles 41, and 42 of the UN charter. The actions outlined in these articles include using force to create peace (Welsh, 2004). On this basis, the issue of state sovereignty is not given much importance, as compared to protecting lives and the welfare of the vulnerable within the society. Welsh (2004) denote that oppressive regimes should not hide behind sovereignty when they continue oppressing their citizens. On this basis, Simms and Trim (2011) argue that intervention based on humanitarian principles precede over the concept of state sovereignty. People have a moral objective and duty to stop any gross violation of the rights of human beings, and the brutal treatment of people and individuals. On most occasions, it is the use of force, that a civilized and standard life can be introduced within a state. Take for example the 1979 Tanzanian intervention in Uganda, for purposes of restoring law and order in the country. President Idi Amin was killing thousands of innocent civilians, and threatened to attack Tanzania for hosting its refugees. To protect these people, and restore law and order, Tanzania attacked Uganda, and led to the overthrow of Idi Amin (Wood, 1996). The ouster of this dictator paved way for democratic elections in Uganda. Based on this example, the oppression of civilians will always reach a time when the national connection between the state and the population does not exist. In situations like this, Sarkin (2010) denotes that national sovereignty of a state does not exist. This is because the national sovereignty is broken down by oppression and cruelty. Pawlowska (2011) on the other hand believe that humanitarian intervention is a just process, and this is because it will result to saving more lives, as compared to the costs that states will incur by intervening. Roberts (2000) denotes that if the conflicts under consideration continue to rise, because of non-interference, then chances are high that neighboring regions and countries will experience instability. This as a result can become a security problem, affecting the entire world. Take for example in Afghanistan, where during the periods of 1990s, the US declared the area as a zone of humanitarian disaster (Wood, 1996). However, the US failed to take a notice that the area was becoming a training ground for terrorists, who could later create a great security problem for the US, and its various interests. For example, the terrorists who bombed the twin towers on September 2001 were trained in Afghanistan (Sarkin, 2010). However, it is important to acknowledge that not the same set of arguments or principles can be applied to all circumstances. It is important to denote that selecting to intervene in a given situation is justifiable, and always inevitable. Massingham (2009) observes that once a choice is made on whether to intervene, the intervening forces will remove the regime or the person responsible for creating disorder, and conflict in the country under consideration. Examples to this situation includes the de-nazification of Germany, after the defeat of Hitler following the end of World War II, and destroying the threats posed by Saddam Hussein through the invasion of Iraq, by the US, and ousting the President. Critics of humanitarian intervention denote that article 2(7) of the UN charter recognizes the sovereignty of States, and prevents any nation or state from interfering with the domestic affairs of a given state (Wheeler, 2000). Some scholars further provide an argument that the international community does not have a legal obligation and jurisdiction over the citizens of another country. On this note, it is only the citizens of the country under consideration who have the capability of determining their own future, and destiny. These scholars further goes on to denote that the states that carry out the humanitarian intervention measures, normally have an imperialistic objective, and their aim is to protect and serve their own interests. Pattison (2010. p. 55) further goes on to denote that humanitarian interventions will only result to short term security measures, which would be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. On this basis, the consequences of humanitarian intervention may lead to the enactment of a fragile and weak government. Despite these arguments against humanitarian intervention, it is important to denote that state sovereignty is not absolute. This is because the principles that guide humanitarian intervention always provide a structure where the states can intervene, in case the state apparatus of the host country are unable, and unwilling to protect their people. In conclusion, the principles contained in International Law denote that gross violations of the rights of individuals are a concern of the international community. On this basis, failing to act, for purposes of preventing these violations are not an option for the international community. By intervening in these states, the international community will be reinforcing morality and the rule of natural law, which is based on rationality and conscience. On this basis, the sovereignty of a state should not be the basis upon which the international community cannot act for purposes of preventing these serious violations of the rights of individuals. The UN should play an important role in determining circumstances when the humanitarian intervention is necessary. On this basis, the idea of humanitarian intervention must be explored in full, and a legal framework developed for purposes of justifying the interventions. Bibliography: Bellamy, A. J. (2006). Just wars: from Cicero to Iraq. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, C. (2003). Sovereignty, rights and justice: international political theory today. Cambridge: Polity. Chesterman, S. (2001). Just war or just peace?: humanitarian intervention and international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cronogue, G. (2012). Responsibility to Protect: Syria The Law, Politics, and Future of Humanitarian Intervention Post-Libya. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3(1), 124-159. Gibbs, D. N. (2009). First do no harm humanitarian intervention and the destruction of Yugoslavia. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Hehir, A. (2008). Humanitarian intervention after Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the record of global civil society. Basingstoke [England: Palgrave Macmillan. Hehir, A. (2013). Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Holzgrefe, J. L., & Keohane, R. O. (2003). Humanitarian intervention: ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kernot, S. (2006). Humanitarian intervention: Human rights versus humanitarian assistance. Global Change, Peace & Security, 18(1), 41-55. Massingham, E. (2009). Military intervention for humanitarian purposes: does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advance the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends?. International review of the Red Cross, 91(876), 803-831. Pattison, J. (2010). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: who should intervene?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pawlowska, K. Z. (2011). A critical humanitarian intervention approach. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England: Palgrave Macmillan. Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (1996). Humanitarian intervention in contemporary conflict: a reconceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Roberts, A. (2000). The So-called ‘Right’ of Humanitarian Intervention. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3, 3. Sarkin, J. (2010). The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention in Africa. Global Responsibility to Protect , 2(4), 371-387. Simms, B., & Trim, D. J. (2011). Humanitarian intervention: a history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Welsh, J. M. (2004). Humanitarian intervention and international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving strangers humanitarian intervention in international society. New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, W. B. (1996). From humanitarian relief to humanitarian intervention: victims, interveners and pillars. Political Geography, 15(8), 671-695. Read More