Humanitarian Intervention Analysis

2515 Words11 Pages
2. GIVE AN ACCOUNT, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF ONE OR TWO LEGAL PHILOSOPHICAL POSITIONS REGARDING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. Introduction Humanitarian intervention raises one of the most controversial questions in international law of great contemporary relevance as it has its place in international politics and it is set in the state practice. In this essay I will provide an account and analysis of one philosphical perception of it and then contrast it with a different one while trying to reflex on certain issues myself and look at them critically. Thomas Franck and Humanitarian Intervention Professor Francks opens his discussion on humanitarian intervention stating that the idea of it actually “sounds good.” Unfortunately human beings…show more content…
First is primary order that links humanitarian intervention and sovereignty. Kofi Annan in relation to Rwadan genocide stated that international community should act even if in breach of state´s sovereignty if a massive violation of human rights occurs. Second order issues relate to definition of humanitarian intervention and its implemenation. The second order concerns arise from historical practice. If we go back to 1971, Pakistan imposed a repressive regime in East Pakistan with result of 2 mil.dead and 8 mil. refugees to border of India. India intervened claiming that Pakistan is committing atrocities, basically a genocide. This was an example of unilateral intervention of stronger state what some states refuse, on the other hand states agree that violations of human rights should not be allowed to…show more content…
According to Franck in cases such as Kosovo “a violation of international law is a moral imperative” and sees NATO intervention in Balkan to prevent genocide in Kosovo not only right but of purely “humanitarian effect” and “overwhelming necessity.” Here Franck considered such violation faultless as it concerned a use of force that the majority of UN Security Council viewed as bona fide intervention by a decent coallition of willing states. Zolo agrees with Franck that it is crucial for international practice to distinguish between genuine humanitarian intervention and the false (opportunistic) one. To Franck a decisive criterion to distinguish the genuine intervention from the false one is if it saved more lives than sacrificed, simply said – if it did more good than harm. Contrarily, Zolo argues that Franck does not actually provide any normative criteria that could help us to distinguish between the

More about Humanitarian Intervention Analysis

Open Document