Humanitarian Intervention Support
This mass killing mostly takes place against rival communities, ethnic groups or between nations. This report will, therefore, strive to explain the principles governing Humanitarian Intervention as regulated by the UN. These include a state’s sovereignty against Human rights. The bigger question here therefore is; does the rights of a polity or a state matter more than the rights of an individual person? There are, therefore, instances where Humanitarian Intervention has been criticized so highly due to the disadvantages that outweighed the advantages of an intervention. The major cases that have had the international attention and has always been in the books are the case of the Rwanda and Kosovo genocide that led to a loss of millions of lives.
This report would, therefore, strive to determine the legality of the Humanitarian Intervention and to determine whether it is of any importance under some different circumstances. The report will highlight the advantages and disadvantages as in the case of Rwanda and Kosovo which will be our case study (Bell, 2014). Humanitarian Intervention was majorly brought up during the1990s by the three major Humanitarian catastrophes that happened in three places namely, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Kosovo. During this period the UN was absent during this period that led to a humanitarian crisis as there was no intervention at that time that would have resulted in the reduced loss of lives (Bell, 2014). Rwanda was the first country that experienced a catastrophe that resulted in requests for military intervention in the year 1994.
So why the UN did just watched and never did anything in securing the people of Rwanda? The powerful state did not want to get involved in another mission after an intervention that happened in Somalia in 1991-1993 that led to the loss of their 18 Army Rangers. Another incident that prompted the Humanitarian intervention was the war that happened in Kosovo, an autonomous province situated in Serbia that happened in the year 1998-1999. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) gave orders to the Milosevic to stop the violence or they would be able to intervene directly by themselves. NATO intervened directly without the authorization of UNSC in the year 1999. This happened majorly due to the fact that the international community had that guilt in themselves for being able to watch lives lost in Rwanda in the year1994 without their intervention when they could have done something to save the situation.
The Objectives and the consequences of a Military Intervention Most of the times, Military intervention has been taken to be negative by the international communities mainly because it has been cited to lack credibility as it has been inconsistent. We, therefore, will discuss here the major objectives that result in the need to have a military intervention in a state. This section will also discuss the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in preventing and ensuring that human life is protected by bringing perpetrators of crimes against humanity to account. Some of the major reason s for Humanitarian intervention therefore includes: 1. Preventing Genocide. Consideration should be put in place to ensure that the intervention consequences do not outweigh the harm that is been prevented through humanitarian Intervention.
Preventing loss of lives is a form of protecting Human rights in a way. Deliberate killing of civilians or a large group of people is against human rights (Bell, 2014). The UN has a role to play in ensuring that they are able to protect loss of lives that would result in Breach of the Human Rights of a particular state or a nation. Consequences of Military Intervention. In cases that are pressing there is an urgent need for quick intervention without any kind of hesitation. The United Kingdom is always governed by international law and the UN charter. These nations are, therefore, not able to forcefully engage in the humanitarian intervention that is outside the scope of this laws. In some other situations, I would be able to recommend humanitarian intervention without the authorization of the UNSC when there is an urgent need for intervention in saving lives.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop