The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

1181 Words5 Pages
In order to fully grasp the impact of Humanitarian Intervention in a postmodern international stage, questions will be addressed in this essay; can intervention ever be genuinely and purely ‘humanitarian’? Can humanitarian intervention ever be reconciled 
with the norm of state sovereignty? To solve of these questions, research from experts, such as Andrew Heywood and Noam Chomsky, will be interpret and study. For the purpose of this work I intend to use this term with the following limitations, to analyze the political, ethical and legal condition of humanitarian intervention. Development: To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. Responsibility to protect human rights resides first…show more content…
Humanitarian Intervention is a military intervention that is carried put in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. (Heywood 319) Humanitarian Intervention can be defined in terms of intentions, due to the fact that it is motivated primarily by the desire to prevent harm to other people. It can also be defined in terms of outcomes, only if its results are an improvement in previous conditions. Nevertheless, some people believe the exact opposite. For example, Howard Zinn stated, “Most wars, after all, present themselves as humanitarian endeavors to help people.” According to this affirmation, humanitarian intervention is nothing but an excuse for nations to go into war and for nations to maintain their power. In Zinn´s vision, Humanitarian interventions can be seen as the creator of Pariahs States, which are states that have diplomatic isolation and attracts condemnation to them; and, because it believes that self-defense is the justification for the use of force, it can also be seen rooted in ethical theories that allows states to risk lives of their militia for…show more content…
According to David Rieff, “It is essentially the theory that outside powers have the right and the duty to intervene to protect people in other countries who are being victimized, even if what is taking place is a conflict within a State.” A sovereign state has the responsibility to protect its citizens and when it fails, it loses its sovereign rights. According to the UN “Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people.” (UN 2014) Thus, there is a moral duty to intervene and protect civilians from catastrophes. Humanitarian interventions offer a direct challenge to such notions of sovereignty. They also avoid considerations of the political rights and wrongs of a given
Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast Modern Conservatism

    1860 Words  | 8 Pages

    Stephen Truong POL-1-28611 Due November 26th, 2014 Compare and Contrast Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism. Conservatism and Liberalism are the two mainstream ideologies that the majority of Americans think and make their political decisions today. Since The United States of America became a country and started its Democracy, its political ideas have changed in some ways. Although modern Conservatism and modern Liberalism are seen as very different beliefs they both share some of the same

    Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

Open Document