The 'Humanity' in Humanitarian Intervention: A Critical Analysis

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: A UNIVERSAL STANDARD? , 2018

This study explores the concept of humanitarian intervention and investigates whether human intervention can connect to a universal standard. The fundamental cause of humanitarian intervention is the response of human rights violations by a state, and thus the intervention to the state. Human rights thoughts are the taboo in the modern world and state sovereignty is one of the signi cant international rights. Nevertheless, the humanitarian intervention is an exception of the state sovereignty, but when? In this context, it is explained what human intervention is, the change in history and time. The political memory of the period and the positions of the states have led to humanitarian intervention decisions. The question of what the limits are is one of the problems of this study and has been assessed and compare with the sovereignty of states and the obligation of protection in international law. It has been argued whether international law will be a social contract. Also, it mentioned in the literature on ethics of humanitarian intervention for understanding the legal and theoretical bases of humanitarian intervention decisions. Is humanitarian intervention that identi es as an exception of the prohibition of the use of force, lawful? Theories on the rethinking of humanitarian intervention and the restructuring of the United Nations Security Council have been evaluated.

Canadian Social Science, 2013

International security is a particularly important and sensitive area of cooperation between states. It has transformed into a new dimension since the second half of the twentieth century, especially when it comes to a development of international protection of human rights. The issue of humanitarian intervention is in particular questionable and actual in this area. It is at the forefront within the development of international relations focusing on internationalization of human rights and their protection in relation to States which severely violate them. There is no doubt that this issue is closely linked to the fundamental principles established in the UN Charter. The UN Charter fixed the situation after World War II, but there has been a change in the nature of the conflicts since then and state sovereignty and human rights protection are in the front. The practice of states, international organizations and the literature therefore suggest that there are many conflicting views on the legitimacy of an armed humanitarian intervention. The author describes some of them, including relevant legal arguments and positions of major players of the international community.

2008

Securitologia

Over the past decades, threats have arisen in the international security environment related to the functioning of weak and countries unable to fulfill their functions in ensuring security and basic human rights for their citizens, referred to in the doctrine as failed/failing states. The international community has responded with humanitarian intervention that is part of the concept of responsibility for protection (Responsibility to Protect). This article is devoted to the issue of placing this concept in positive international law (remarks de lege lata) and the resulting applications (de lege ferenda comments).

Journalism and Mass Communication, 2018

During the last decade of the 20th century, there were nine humanitarian interventions: in Northern Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Albania, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone. Of the cases cited, the consent of the home government was obtained in five cases and two others had explicit Security Council authorization. However, two cases were carried out without consent of the government or authorization by the UN Security Council: Northern Iraq and Kosovo. NATO bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999 received a particular attention and condemnation. Without UN Security Council’s resolution for that “air campaign”, there was justification that the action was about prevention of humanitarian catastrophe. This paper will attempt at identifying legal position of humanitarian intervention in international law; whether or not, and in what circumstances, it is safe to claim that there exists the right to humanitarian intervention. At the beginning of the 21st century, there has been extensive consideration of the “responsibility to protect” as a composite concept comprising the responsibilities to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, to react immediately when they do occur and to rebuild afterwards. Such an approach may be seen as an effort to redefine the principle of humanitarian intervention in a way that seeks to minimize the motives of the intervening powers. The paper also deals with the relation and differences between humanitarian intervention and “responsibility to protect” concept.

2015

The question that we shall address in this paper is of particular importance and very complex, because we deal directly with the territory of an internationally recognized entity and membership in various international organizations that make it subject to the force in international point of view. Here we will address the issue of intervention or nonintervention in the territory of a state known internationally, which state makes drastic violation of human rights and the exercise of genocide and violence in "his people". Through this paper we will try to give answer many dilemmas about state sovereignty and concepts around it. The right of the international community for global surveillance and security is inalienable right and the international community has an obligation to provide security for all citizens of the world regardless of race, gender, religion etc. Violation of basic human rights of their states constitutes a crime punishable by different international acts....

All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 2016

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD), 2020

Sovereign states are responsible to safe their citizens from harm and massacres. Any other state doesn't have the right to interfere in any other states' internal affairs. But sometimes either some states are not able to prevent their citizens from harms or they oppress on their citizens and violate the rights and freedoms of their citizens. In this case, either United Nation interferes in the issue or some other powerful states are willing to prevent the other societies from danger. So, what is the fact of intervention? Do the powerful states have the right to interfere in other states 'internalaffairs in order to safe their citizens from killing or massacre? Who are responsible for this case? The paper is trying to find the facts of the interventions, the intervention in Iraq, Syria, Rwanda and particularly in Afghanistan. No doubt some states are very interested to rescue the life of other states' citizens. How the other states kill their troops to safe the others citizens? Are they honest on their acts? We look forward to evaluate the aspects of such interventions.