Essay on Humanitarian Intervention

Part 1 Lack of definition

Over the years different governments have justified their unilateral military action about their military humanitarian intervention in one form or the other and several instances the international community has declined to recognize this intervention as legitimate. Thus, this customary law is very sickening and reckless as there is comprehensive no guidance to the correct manner in which the response itself need to be conducted (Bellamy, 2005, p 30). Therefore, if indeed there is to be a proper humanitarian intervention then there is need to have a coherent humanitarian justification that is coupled with the right kind of procedural and substantive legal regime to underwrite it. Humanitarian response is defined as the means to prevent or stop any form of gross violation of human rights in a victim country. In this state it is incapable or unwilling to protect its own people or in dire cases the state is persecuting its own people. The 1990s has been identified by many scholars as the decade that witnessed lots of humanitarian intervention (Weiss, T.G., 2004 p, 140).

The history of humanitarian intervention indicates that every use of military intervention has been justified as a humanitarian intervention. However, it is proven not every military intervention can be classified as squarely as a result of the humanitarian intervention. The example in the 1990s, the United States has been blamed on three occasions to result in the military action with intent to express humanitarian response, but the Security Council did not authorize the specific steps. However, there are instances where military interventions have been carried out without any authorization but have been declared legitimate. Example, NATOs intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and military intervention in Libya. Therefore, there is the need for a precise definition of humanitarian intervention to avoid cases of misunderstanding of the law. The research aims to explicitly explain the need to use the military interventions only when there is a clear need. The purpose of humanitarian intervention is to protect the people. With a clear understanding of the intention of these reasonable measures, then the superpower nations can stop showing off their military muscles by intervening in every countries war. Military actions need to be the last result; a country needs to be given an opportunity first to try and sort its current crises. The intervention of international community only needs to be possible when the Security Council has made an assessment and determined there is the need for UN military forces to intervene (Teson, 1988). However, to ensure wrong judgments are not made about issuing the orders for intervention by the Security Council a precise description of the factors to consider before declaring the need to have a military response is critical.

Based on the history of human intervention as noted above, the use of military force has been justified to be necessary and described as the humanitarian intervention (Fassin and Pandolfi, 2010, p 24). However, there is a wrong interpretation of the use of military force. There is a noted quick resort on the use of military force without the consideration that use of military force needs to be the last resort. There is always an ulterior motive that predisposes a state to get involved in international matters and many a time the intervention itself has been classified to be unilateral and unauthorized. Therefore, it need not be the capability of a nation to have the powers to intervene or not in another country affairs but rather a well-defined law needs to be put in place for the county that seeks to speak in its mode of operation.

Part 2 Ethical issues and R2P/Liberal

Global leaders are noted to have met in 2005, and they agreed to take some form of action about the current global challenges. Some of the issues the leaders decided to work on were; development, terrorism, peace building, responsibility to protect, human rights, democracy, management reform environment, international health, and humanitarian assistance (Dunne and Staunton, 2016, p38). However, despite the liberal thinking of preserving both the countrys interests and also placing the needs of the people at the forefront has been coupled with some ethical issues.

Often the humanitarian intervention is commonly defined about military action, but there are other non-military interventions example, government-sponsored economic activities, volunteer programs and medical camps. A question may arise, is humanitarian intervention an area for ethical concerns? Indeed. One critical care is the powerful nations like the United States who have often been criticized for meddling in other nations activities even in cases when there is no much threat to human rights in the country. Therefore, this has resulted in the nations where the United States forces have been involved to feel like they are facing some form of colonialism. This is experienced where one country controls the other with little or no resistance at all. Based on the liberalism notion, there is need to ensure there are equal opportunities shared among different countries to provide a balanced chance for every individual. Therefore, despite the superpowers troops being charged with protecting the other nations, there is need to ensure the victim nations economy is not so ruined that it takes years to rebuild the nations economy (Chesterman, 2001 p 5). The expectation of the humanitarian intervention team goes to the suffering country, and offer assistance with little adverse effects felt.

Overtime there has been a tendency of the use of military forces in solving different countries political problems. An ethical question may be raised, how to the use of force explain the peoples social well-being. Example, in Rwanda Genocide that left millions dead there was involvement of the UN forces. However, despite the trooped aimed at stopping the war to regain the peace in the country, the troops were at dilemma which of the two sides to support to end the war. After the war, the country then faced years of setbacks in its development, and they took considerably a very long time before they could regard their position on the world map again. Therefore, there is no direct link between military troops trying to solve political tension in a country as often the forces as unable to resolve the social situation in these countries which is the primary development point of the nations.

The US is a powerful nation that over the years has been consulted to help maintain peace in different parts of the world. An ethical question has been raised regarding the moral justification of the American soldiers that die in the field in line of duty as they are trying to be peace in a foreign land (Macfarlane, Thielking, and Weiss, 2004, p 978). Often the argument may be made the soldiers die for a course and are ready and willing to give up their lives as they fight for human rights. However, it is not okay to put a solder in the line of knowing danger because many of them will not abandon their call for service. President Trump administration is noted to run his government uniquely. In several occasions, President Trump is indicated to ask for the American soldiers to withdraw from different peacekeeping missions and the soldiers ordered to return to their country base and protect the Americans in place of being involved in other countrys affairs.

An ethical dilemma that is continuously affecting the peacekeeping troops in the international al community is their responsibility to protect the civilian populations whose rights are being severely violated (Finnemore, 1996, p 153). While on the other hand, there is need to exploit other means apart from violence to see if there is a probability of the total recovery of the people. However, primarily when a country is being held hostage by the different political parties, many of the leaders are not willing to consult other ways of solving the situation like dialogue that potentially results to avoiding violence. Colombia is one of the most significant regions where it has been impacted by drugs, The USA has been blamed for offering ready market and technology for the drugs. Therefore, despite America declaring war on drugs, there is still a likelihood the drugs will continue to find their way into the American streets. In return further damaging the Colombia economic status and resulting to more people languishing in poverty as the drugs in Colombia is sold at inferior prices yet sold at a gold price in America. The ethical dilemma being, do the Americans just legalize drugs and significantly affect its prices or should American continue to fight the war on drugs and not only in American but get interested with the source of the drugs company so that the eradication can be done ones (Fixdal, and Smith,1998, p 153).

Humanitarian intervention is not to be very selective in some cases. The Middle East section is noted not to be on the priority list. The super nations like the United States are observed to be very selective in the nations they get involved. Moreover, the Middle East is an Islamic region, and in several instances, the Security Council has withdrawn from helping the victims from Islamic states. Furthermore, a nation like the USA has to be very careful in the country to support to terminate the never-ending war, but the USA gets its oil from the Mille East. Therefore, the citizen from these nations continues to the surfer as a result of the economic partnership.

The effectiveness of different humanitarian interventions has been raised as an issue the Security Council needs to address. Indeed at times there is need to have military forces in the county. However, after the troops have departed the stipulated humanitarian development measures are difficult to implement with the ongoing country military forces. Thus, it is fundamental for the security to ensure they select on the humanitarian means that a county can be able to continue to implement even after the Security Council troops have left the nation.

Part 3 Effects of intervention in another state

Over the years the humanitarian intervention has resulted to the intensification of human rights violations, there has been a lot of erosion of UN authority and has immensely produced to an expansion of the reach of first super nations. The humanitarian intervention aims to ensure the rights of the people in the victim country are protected. However, with the resent humanitarian interventions across the globe, the objective has been significantly watered down to the level of the consequences further suppressing the expected advantages of the humanitarian interventions. Some of the negative effects realized by the country after a humanitarian intervention are, the country feels like it is being colonized once again by the super nation, the measures used during the invasion do not apply after the protecting nation has left. The intervene nation tends to control the country key runnings and can jeopardize the nation significantly and given many of the humanitarian issues are social, many of the measures undertaken by the intervening nations do not solve the core problem which is social.

State-centric approaches are noted to affect the nations in need of humanitarian intervention significantly. The state-centric approaches are noted to be approaches that deal with the new era of threats. About realism and the scope, state-centric countries focus primarily on the ability of the state to provide sufficient military forces to guard its people. Therefore, it does not mean the country does not cater to the peoples wellbeing, but the national military forces are v...