Question

Why is the term humanitarian intervention contested and deeply controversial? In which circumstances would a humanitarian...

Why is the term humanitarian intervention contested and deeply controversial? In which circumstances would a humanitarian intervention considered legitimate.

Homework Answers

Answer #1

Humanitarian Intervention And State Sovereignty
The language and practice of humanitarian intervention is far from new. It has been the source of incessant argument by lawyers, theologians, and philosophers for generations, even centuries. But the recent debate has its origins in the Cold War and was motivated by a number of controversial military actions. Three in particular stand out: India’s intervention in the Bangladesh War of 1971; Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in 1978, which resulted in the overthrow of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime; and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1979, which ousted the dictator Idi Amin. These interventions were all condemned throughout the world. This criticism tended to be based on the contention that they undermined the notion of state sovereignty enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter. As such, these interventions offered a fundamental challenge to the stability of the post-World War II international system.


In the post-Cold War era, however, this conception of sovereignty as sacrosanct came under sustained attack. It was argued that despotic leaders should not be able to hide behind the shield of state sovereignty and that the international community had an obligation to intervene to stop the widespread abuse of human rights. This contention garnered widespread support. It was an important theme, for example, in the writings of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The 1990s was a decade of interventions: Iraqi “no-fly zones,” Somalia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and Kosovo. The Iraq War (2003–11) was classified as a humanitarian intervention by some of its advocates, demonstrating how wide the embrace of the term had become.

Criticisms Of Humanitarian Intervention
The doctrine of humanitarian intervention has been widely criticized. For many detractors, it represents a mode of liberal imperialism. Likewise, humanitarian intervention has been censured for coercively imposing Western ideas about rights onto other cultures. For others, humanitarianism is simply rhetorical cover either for the implementation of traditional geopolitical policies or for powerful economic interests. In particular, it is argued, the failure of the Western powers to intervene during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where there were no obvious economic or political interests at stake, demonstrated their hypocrisy. Indeed, Rwanda has become a lightning rod for the debate. For critics of interventionism, it proved that interventions were linked to self-interest. For advocates, Rwanda was a catastrophic failure and a spur for future action.


Legal And Practical Issues
Numerous contentious issues frame the debate. Some are theoretical, others practical. Probably the most intractable relate to the question of legitimacy (both legal and moral). Who is to judge an intervention legitimate, and on what grounds? Much of the legal debate stems from the tension between Article 51 of the UN Charter and the provisions of Article 24(1) and Chapter VII, which grant the Security Council powers to take whatever measures it regards as necessary to reestablish international peace and security. If an act is deemed to threaten peace and security, the UN can empower agents to rectify this, as occurred in the Bosnian conflict (1992–95). However, legal and moral obligations have clashed. In Kosovo, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervened without UN authorization, claiming that although such authorization was unlikely to be granted, there was nevertheless an overwhelming ethical imperative to act.

Aside from questions of legitimacy, there are other problems to be confronted. There is a practical issue. Even if interventions were regarded universally as legitimate, there exists no consensus about whether they actually work, or whether they delay or even exacerbate the problems they seek to resolve. The question of motivation is also problematic. Is it ever really possible to act solely for humanitarian reasons? Moreover, should motivation actually matter? This all depends on what ethical system is employed. If it is simply a matter of consequences, as a utilitarian might argue, then an intervention conducted purely in the name of national self-interest that resulted in a “humanitarian” outcome (for example, the overthrow of a genocidal leader) could be classified as a humanitarian intervention. Likewise, an intervention conducted out of concern for human rights, if it failed in its primary goal, could not be classified as such. Such issues continue to drive the debate.

Please rate my answer

Know the answer?
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for?
Ask your own homework help question
Similar Questions
Why do you suppose that the Hubble constant was such a controversial and hotly contested number...
Why do you suppose that the Hubble constant was such a controversial and hotly contested number for so many decades?
Should have there been humanitarian intervention in the rwandan genocide? Why or why not?
Should have there been humanitarian intervention in the rwandan genocide? Why or why not?
In which of the following circumstances would an auditor not express an unmodified opinion? There has...
In which of the following circumstances would an auditor not express an unmodified opinion? There has been a material change between periods in accounting principles. The auditor is unable to obtain audited financial statements of a long-term investee. The auditor wishes to emphasize an unusually important subsequent event. Quarterly financial data required by the SEC have been omitted.
7. Explain the term Crowding In. What does it refer to, why would it be considered...
7. Explain the term Crowding In. What does it refer to, why would it be considered beneficial, and does this mean there is no crowding out? (7 points)
Describe circumstances in which mitosis would occur and the results of this process.
Describe circumstances in which mitosis would occur and the results of this process.
Why would blood pressure and heart rate increase under some circumstances but not others?
Why would blood pressure and heart rate increase under some circumstances but not others?
capital deepening vs capital widening which would lead to long term growth and why
capital deepening vs capital widening which would lead to long term growth and why
Why should the definition of law emphasize enforcement and are there any circumstances under which a...
Why should the definition of law emphasize enforcement and are there any circumstances under which a society could exist without law?
why is the efficient level of pollution not zero? Under what circumstances would the efficient level...
why is the efficient level of pollution not zero? Under what circumstances would the efficient level of pollution be equal to or very close to zero? explain using graph/s
1) Which spots would be considered positive controls? Why? 2) Which spots would be considered negative...
1) Which spots would be considered positive controls? Why? 2) Which spots would be considered negative controls? Why? 3) Where is salivary amylase normally found in the human body? What is the pH approximately in that location?