Humanitarian Intervention
- Created by: xmeganbakerx
- Created on: 25-02-19 14:19
View mindmap
- Humanitarian interventions
- Why did they increase in the 1990s?
- The Cold War was over so the UNSC was no longer divided between the US and the USSR, making action easier.
- Advances in broadcasting technology made human rights abuses harder to conceal.
- Establishment of UN safe havens to protect the Kurds in Iraq in 1991 challenged Westphalian principles of state sovereignty.
- Human suffering and potential for regional instability caused by inaction was shown by failures to intervene soon enough in Rwanda and Bosnia.
- UN secretary-generals Boutros Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan put their moral weight behind humanitarian intervention.
- Criteria for success
- Commitment to subsequent nation-building.
- Realistic objectives
- Sufficient military force
- International or regional support
- Why did unsuccessful humanitarian interventions fail?
- Unrealistic aims (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan)
- Lacked legitimacy (Iraq)
- Were too late (Rwanda, Darfur)
- Insufficient commitment to military force or nation-building (Bosnia, Libya)
- Often these factors overlapped, leading to failure.
- Why did successful humanitarian interventions succeed?
- Sufficient military force was deployed (Bosnia, Kosovo)
- Realistic objectives (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, East Timor)
- Strong commitment to nation-building (Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor)
- Strong international or regional support (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, East Timor)
- In most cases all these criteria were fulfilled, encouraging success.
- For humanitarian intervention to occur, what do world leaders need to be convinced of?
- There's moral ground to intervene
- Intervention won't provoke a wider conflict.
- Military force could resolve the conflict
- Lack of action could threaten interests
- International or regional support
- What are the moral and legal issues associated with humanitarian intervention?
- Forcible intervention assumes there are universal moral absolutes that unite the world.
- Western interventions could equally be seen as a form of cultural imperialism.
- Intervening states may use humanitarian grounds as a facade to increase their power and further their own interests, or even to control or annexe another state.
- Intervention isn't guaranteed to improve the situation on the ground. Use of force may lead to more loss of life as war escalates.
- Forcible intervention goes against principles of state sovereignty.
- Intervention can be seen as contravening 'just-war' theory, as it's not a last resort. Could be seen as another way of starting a war.
- Forcible intervention assumes there are universal moral absolutes that unite the world.
- Why did they increase in the 1990s?
Similar Government & Politics resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made