Criticisms of humanitarian intervention
- Created by: Kirsty Pym
- Created on: 17-04-14 14:13
View mindmap
- Why has humanitarian intervention been criticised?
- Humanitarian Intervention
- Military intervention
- Carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives
- Any violation of state sovereignty weakens the established rules of world order
- Aggression has almost always been legitimised by humanitarian justification
- Meaning it is difficult to distinguish between the self-interest of intervening powers and wider moral concerns
- Military intervention often leaves matters worse, or draws intervening powers into complex and difficult long-term involvement
- National interests - Realists argue that states are concerned with national interest and their justification is an example of political mendacity
- Double standards - There are many examples of pressing humanitarian emergencies in which intervention is ruled out because no national interest is at stake
- Because of absence of media coverage or politically impossible - e.g. Tibet
- Moral pluralism - cultural imperialism based on Western notion of human rights that may not be applicable in other parts of the world
- Cultural and religious differences make it difficult to establish universal guidelines
- Humanitarian Intervention
Similar Government & Politics resources:
Teacher recommended
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made