The debate over wether humanitarian intervention is a tool in which nations can fulfil a responsibility to protect innocent civilians during times of turmoil, genocide and danger, presents many for and against arguments. Many believe ‘humanitarian intervention’ is just a doctrine used as a trojan horse for great power abuse whereas others claim it is the greatest large scale act of humanity. This essay will explore several arguments that support and and challenge this doctrine using recent and relevant cases of humanitarian intervention or where it was necessary such as the Rwandese Genocide and conflicts Kosovo, Libya and Syria.
“Classical humanitarian intervention is the unilateral intervention for protection of another state's nationals from human rights violations.” (Ulrich Beyerlin 1981).The theory of intervention on the ground of humanity is that which recognises the right of one state to exercise an international control, often by military force, over the acts of another in regard to its internal sovereignty when contrary to laws of humanity.
Arguments for humanitarian intervention classically emphasise the human aspect of this doctrine. Advocates for humanitarian intervention believe that a nations ability to provide aid in times of national turmoil should not be politically fuelled or an issue of numbers of lives saved. The argument that a life is a life, that there are no bad victims. For example during the conflicts in Lebanon the movement doctors without borders provided aid to victims of all religious groups. The justification for humanitarian intervention rests first and foremost with the argument that there is a moral duty to protect civilians from human rights abuses. This stems through religion and perhaps political philosophy. The right to life is an important concept of natural law, and it provides the foundation of the justification for humanitarian intervention, because the right to life is a universally accepted norm. “All cultures, be they Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, secular or Christian, value the sanctity of human life. Furthermore it is difficult to think of any culture that welcomes drought, famine, disease, murder and malnutrition”(Caney, 1997, p. 34). The right to life is formally or implicitly recognised in every human society, be it through religion or a constitution based on natural law. Therefore protection of life is a goal which is justifiable in all corners of the globe. It follows that humanitarian intervention, which has as its central aim the protection of life, is a moral obligation and right in the realm of international relations.
Contrary to popular belief Humanitarian interventions are not always conducted by the military, however do often require a military components. Humanitarian crisis’ are caused by political malevolence which is why they often require political violence.() The undertaking is intrinsically difficult, hence the lack of success stories. However, one such example of success is Britains campaign in Sierra Leone between 2000 and 2002. When the Revolutionary United Front rejected the Lomé peace agreement and again threatened Freetown, the capital, Britain provided vital support to the Sierra Leone government and the beleaguered U.N. peacekeeping mission on the ground. British forces repelled the RUF advance and then remained in Sierra Leone to clear the path to peace. That peace has held for well over a decade and seen the passage of political power through fair elections.
There are two main cases that highlight the weaknesses of humanitarian intervention: they are the inaction of the United Nations during Rwandan genocide and NATO action in Kosovo . Rwanda, a failure that has defined the UN over the last 20 years. UN troops not properly trained in how to tackle the situation.
Rwanda- in the latter part of 1999 a critical report was released highlighting the fatal mistakes made by the international community in their aid (or lack of). This report the document begins. "The international community did not prevent the genocide, nor did it stop the killing once it had begun.”
Kosovo- David N Gibbs suggests that Nato's 1999 aerial campaign in Serbia set an abysmal precedent for future humanitarian interventions, including the current intervention in Libya (A template for disaster, 22 March).
Opponents to the good of this doctrine also argue that military intervention is thinly veiled Western imperialism, and subsequently, an assault on state sovereignty.
Thirdly is the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
Further, given recent waves of populism in the U.S., France, and U.K., arguments against present the thought that Western nations should spend their time focusing inward rather than policing activity around the world.
In Conclusion The debate surrounding humanitarian intervention will always be contentious, as the discussion has implications for the value that the international community places on human life. As Ignatieff asserts, the inability of the global community to respond to every violation of human rights means that intervention to stop genocide will never rest upon an unassailable intellectual foundation[23]. However, that fact does not constitute justification to forgo intervention altogether. By contrast, the international community must intervene with force against all actions of genocide. The universal acceptance of the right to life obliges that we do no less. “Without intervention and the threat of intervention . . . it is certain that autocratic national elites will murder and torture on a massive scale. From an impartial point of view, the benefits obviously outweigh the risks”[24]. Contemporarily, NATO and the UN constitute the most legitimate and capable institutions for the exercise of humanitarian intervention. However, the international community should be working towards the establishment of a standing UN army for the purpose of humanitarian intervention. Such an institution would save countless lives by practicing the justifiable act of humanitarian intervention.