HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

Humanitarian Intervention

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention is in no way an exclusively contemporary phenomenon. If we turn the pages of history, we will find that it has been an extremely discordant issue across different epochs. In the wake of such global phenomenon which has affected many countries of the world, a human intellectual faces several key questions. Is humanitarian intervention a moral imperative? Is prioritizing the national interest over “saving strangers” actually a moral imperative? Has there ever been a truly humanitarian intervention? If so, when? If not, why? What theoretical perspective on humanitarian intervention is most convincing? In the case of Northern Iraq (April 1991) and Somalia (December 1992), residents opinion functioned a vital part in forcing policymakers' into exercising strength for humane purposes. The French military interference in Rwanda in July 1994, by contrast, seems to be clear verdict of abuse. The government of France stressed the severely humanitarian nature of the operation, but this elucidation lacks reliability given the confirmation that they were secretly following national self-interest. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the topic from the view point of political sciences. The essay will endeavor to cover various opinions of scholars in the context to establish the grounds for better interpretation of the contentious topic.

Humanitarian Intervention

Introduction

Humanitarian intervention is in no way an exclusively contemporary phenomenon. If we turn the pages of history, we will find that it has been an extremely discordant issue across different epochs. In recent times, the world has observed extreme violence against human rights, encouraging and providing grounds for external military exploit or, in short, 'humanitarian intervention'. Under the UN Resolution 1973, NATO's recent military action in Libya in defense of Libyan civilians reveals the influence of the materializing norms of Human Rights. Unquestionably, the notion of humanitarian intervention pose s a noteworthy obstacles to the leading legalist model based upon the non intervention norm and 'rights of states' with some viewing involvement as an unfair sign of power and tactical computations of state behavior rather than directed by the feeling of humankind. In addition, beyond the stated justification of the intervention deceits the more multifaceted issue contiguous the nature of its implementation. The intervention of Afghanistan and Iraq presents prime evidence to this often indefinable association between legitimating course of such intervention and subsequently, its successful execution. In the wake of such global phenomenon which has affected many countries of the world, a human intellectual faces several key questions. Is humanitarian intervention a moral imperative? Is prioritizing the national interest over “saving strangers” actually a moral imperative? Has there ever been a truly humanitarian intervention? If so, when? If not, why? What theoretical perspective on humanitarian intervention is most convincing?

Discussion

Armed humanitarian intervention was not justifiable practice through the cold war epoch because states put more significance on independence and order than on the human rights enforcement. There was a noteworthy swing of attitudes during the 1990s, particularly in the middle of liberal democratic states, which guided the way in pushing ...