*

*
* Humanitarian intervention is a state's use of military force against
another state when the chief aim of that military action is ending
human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which
it is directed.
* However, there is no one standard or legal definition of
humanitarian intervention.
* Differences in definition include variations in:
* whether humanitarian interventions is limited to instances where
there is an absence of consent from the host state
* whether humanitarian intervention is limited to punishment
* and whether humanitarian intervention is limited to cases where
there has been explicit UN Security Council authorization for action.
* There is, however, a general consensus on some of its essential
characteristics:

* 1.Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military
forces as a central feature
* 2.It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the
internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the
territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an
act of aggression against another state.
* 3.The intervention is in response to situations that do not
necessarily pose direct threats to states strategic interests, but
instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

*Since 2002, the European Union has intervened abroad sixteen times
in three different continents under the doctrine of humanitarian
intervention
*
* The subject of humanitarian intervention has remained a
compelling foreign policy issue, especially since NATOs
intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

* It highlights the tension between the principle of state
sovereignty and evolving international norms related to
human rights and the use of force.

* Moreover, it has sparked debates over its legality, the
ethics of using military force to respond to human rights
violations, when it should occur, who should intervene, and
whether it is effective.

* To its supporters, it marks imperative action in the face of
human rights abuses, over the rights of state sovereignty.
* To its critics it is often viewed as an excuse for military
intervention often devoid of legal reasons, selectively
deployed and achieving only ambiguous ends.
* Its frequent use following the end of the Cold War
suggested to many that a new norm of military
humanitarian intervention was emerging in international
politics, although some now argue that the 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the US "war on terror" have brought the era of
humanitarian intervention to an end.

*
* Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and
systematic destruction, in whole or in part,
of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national
group
* Instances of genocide have taken place
throughout history.
* The Holocaust during World War two and
the Nuremberg trials defined the crime of
genocide under international law.
* Determining what historical events
constitute a genocide and which are merely
criminal or inhuman behaviour is not a
clear-cut matter.
* In nearly every case where accusations of
genocide have circulated, partisans of
various sides have fiercely disputed the
interpretation and details of the event,
often to the point of promoting wildly
different versions of the facts.
* An accusation of genocide is certainly not
taken lightly and will almost always be
controversial.


*
1. The
Amerindians
1490 -1890
2. Armenia
1915
3. Jews/Slavs/
Romany
1939-45
4. Cambodia
1975-9
5. Bosnia 1992-
1995
6. Rwanda
1994

*
1991 Northern Iraq. In the aftermath of the gulf war, the USA
launched Operation Provide Comfort to establish safe
havens for the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq by
establishing a no-fly zone policed by aircraft
1992 Somalia. On the brink of catastrophe, a UN authorised and
US led intervention sought to establish a protected
environment for humanitarian operations
1994 Haiti. Following a military coup and growing lawlessness,
15,000 US troops were despatched to Haiti to restore order.
1994 Rwanda. Following the Rwandan genocide, and once the
Tutsi had gained control of most of the country, the French
established a safe zone for Hutu refugees
1999 Kosovo. With fears about ethnic cleansing of the Albanian
people, a campaign of air strikes, conducted by NATO,
forced the Serbs to agree to withdraw forces from Kosovo
1999 East Timor. As Indonesia stepped up a campaign of
intimidation and suppression, a UN authorised peacekeeping
force, led by Australia, took control of the island from
Indonesia
2000 Sierra Leone. After a prolonged civil war in Sierra Leone,
the UK government sent a small force to protect UK citizens
and to support the elected government against rebel forces
that were being accused of carrying out atrocities
*
1. Humanitarian intervention usually overlaps with
national interests. For example, US intervention
in Haiti was partly motivated by a desire to stop
the flow of Haitian refugees (NATO in Kosovo
also)
2. In a world of 24/7 news coverage, governments
often come under public pressure to act . This is
the so called CNN effect. Examples include the
failure to prevent genocides in Rwanda and
Srebrenica where governments were heavily
criticised by the media.
3. The end of the cold war rivalry, and the
emergence of the USA as the world superpower,
created circumstances in which it was easier to
reach agreements to act. Neither Russia or China
were able to block or challenge the USA is that
now changing with Syria?
4. In view of the possibility of building a new world
order, politicians were more willing to accept
that the doctrine of human rights lays down
standards of ethical conduct. For Kofi Annan,
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, human rights provides
a basis for intervening in other states.

*
1. Indivisible Humanity
* There is a common humanity.
* Moral responsiblities cannot be confined just
to your own state.
* There is an obligation to save strangers if the
resources exist and the costs are not too
great.
2. Global interdependence
* We are all connected and interdependent.
* States are not islands.
* Intervention can therefore be justified on the
grounds of enlightened self interest, for
example preventing a refugee crisis.
3. Regional stability
* Humanitarian crises can have big implications
for the regional balance of power.
* Major powers may opt to intervene to prevent
a possible regional war
*
4. Promoting democracy
*People may not possess the democratic
means to deal with their problems.
*Humanitarian intervention normally
takes place in a context of dictatorship.
*Democracy promotion is a legitimate
long-term goal of intervention as it will
strengthen human rights in the future.
5. International community
*Intervention provides evidence that the
international community shares certain
values such as peace, democracy and
human rights.
*It strengthens these values by
establishing guidelines for how people
should be treated.
*
1. Its against international law.
* Intervention in another country is
only authorised as self defence.
*State sovereignty is the surest way of
upholding international order.
*If humanitarian intervention is
permitted, international law becomes
confused and weaker.
2. National interests rule
*Since states are always motivated by
national interests, their claim that
military action is humanitarian is
false.
*If intervention was really
humanitarian, the state would be
putting its own citizens at risk in
order to save strangers, violating its
own national interests.
*
3. Double standards
* There are many examples of pressing humanitarian
intervention that are never considered e.g. Rwanda.
* This can happen because no national interest is at stake,
the media is absent or because intervention is politically
impossible e.g. Chechnya and Tibet.
4. Simplistic politics
* The case for intervention is normally put in a simple
good vs. evil way.
* This is often very distorted or exaggerated but also
ignores moral complexities.
* This often leads to intervention going wrong.
5. Moral Pluralism
* Humanitarian intervention could also be seen as cultural
imperialism.
* In other words, it is based on a western notion of human
rights that may not apply in other parts of the world.
* Historical, cultural and religious differences may make it
impossible to establish universal guidelines for the
behaviour of governments.
* What is a just cause?
*Exam Questions
1. What is humanitarian intervention?
2. What is genocide?
3. Can humanitarian intervention be justified?