Humanitarian intervention is the use of military force by one state or a group of

states to intervene in another state, typically to protect civilians from atrocities

such as genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. This concept is
often debated and controversial, with proponents arguing that it is a moral
imperative to prevent suffering and uphold human rights, while critics contend
that it violates sovereignty and can lead to unintended consequences.
Humanitarian interventions are only intended to prevent human rights
violations in extreme circumstances. Attempts to establish institutions and
political systems to achieve positive outcomes in the medium- to long-run,
such as peacekeeping, peace-building and development aid, do not fall under
this definition of a humanitarian intervention. There is not one standard or
legal definition of humanitarian intervention; the field of analysis (such as law,
ethics or politics) often influences the definition that is mentioned above.
Cons:
I. Sovereignty violation: Intervention can violate the sovereignty of states.
II. Unintended consequences: Intervention can lead to instability, civil war,
or even more suffering.
III. Selectivity: Critics argue that intervention is often selective and
influenced by political interests.
Humanitarian interventions types:
I. Military actions: Sending an army to remove a dictator
II. Non-military actions: Using economic sanctions, political
pressure, or organizations like the Peace Corps
III. Diplomatic solutions: Using the threat of force to achieve a
political solution
IV. Peacekeeping: Protecting civilians, disarming those involved in
violent conflict, and monitoring ceasefires
General characteristics:
I. Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military
forces as a central feature
II. 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.
III. 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.

The debate about whether humanitarian intervention can be seen as a

righteous and justified act, depends largely on which one of the variety of
theories we decide to examine the concept through. In the school of
international relations, we can analyse humanitarian intervention from the
perspectives of for example realist, constructivist, liberalist,
and idealist theories. When it comes to realist theory, humanitarian
intervention can never be purely humanitarian since the main actors are states
who act out of their own interests. In addition, realists highlight that the
decisions whether to intervene or not are made by political decision makers
who all have their own reasons behind the willingness to intervene or not
intervene. Similarly, some realists argue that humanitarianism should not be
treated as a separate category in a state's behaviour. One of the problems in
this approach is that it might lead to lack of intervention, unless states see a
material interest in it. Realist theory thus precludes moral action unless it is in
line with state interests. According to constructivist theorists, a state's self-
interest is also defined by its identity as well as shared values and principles,
which include promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights. Therefore,
if we expect that these values are morally valuable, intervention which is self-
interested in the above-mentioned sense might not be morally problematic.
Moreover, they emphasize that morals and self-interests are not mutually
exclusive. For certain constructivists it's also important that the intervener is
seen as legitimate on a global level, in order to not meet pressure that would
prevent its success. Liberalism can be perceived as one of humanitarian
intervention's ethical sources, which challenges the norms and methods of
sovereign states’ governance together with its existence in the case where
one of many nationalities experience oppression. Certain liberalists even
value national self-determination higher than an individual's right to
democratic government, refusing the ethical origin of an intervention when
only democracy is at risk. One strain of liberalism in this context is forceful
liberalism, which perceives sovereignty as only an instrumental value. Forceful
liberalists highlight the human rights defence through intervention both with
the consent from the Security Council or without it. For them, the lack of
intervention to the Rwandan genocide in 1994 was graver than not intervening
because of lack of authorisation. At the other end there is idealist theory,
according to which all individuals are connected through shared values, rights,
duties and universal norms. Since the world is seen as a big community,
everyone is connected through a common humanitarian law, thus making
intervention a responsibility rather than a violation against state
sovereignty. Human rights violations happening in one part of the world would
therefore affect everyone equally. However, idealism is often seen as too
simplified and narrow since it claims that intervention has to follow purely
altruistic motives where people selflessly want to help other individuals
regardless of their race, religion or nationality.
Authorized interventions:
I. The understanding of what constitutes threats to international
peace has been radically broadened since the 1990s to include
such issues as mass displacement, and the UN Security Council
 has authorized use of force in situations that many states would
have previously viewed as "internal" conflicts.

Unauthorized interventions:
I. In several instances states or groups of states have
intervened with force, and without advanced authorization
from the UN Security Council, at least in part in response to
alleged extreme violations of basic human rights. Fairly recent
examples include the intervention after the Gulf War to protect
the Kurds in northern Iraq as well as NATO's intervention in
Kosovo.

Humanitarian intervention failures;

I. The Rwandan Genocide (1994): Despite overwhelming
evidence of genocide, the international community failed to
intervene to stop the killing of over 800,000 people in just 100
days.
This failure was attributed to a lack of political will,
bureaucratic delays, and a failure to understand the gravity of
the situation.
II. The Bosnian War (1992-1995): The international community's
initial response to the conflict was slow and ineffective. The
UN peacekeeping mission was under-resourced and ill-
prepared to deal with the escalating violence. This led to
widespread atrocities, including the Srebrenica massacre,
where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed.
III. The Libyan Civil War (2011): While the NATO-led intervention
helped to topple Muammar Gaddafi's regime, it also
destabilized the country and led to a power vacuum. The
absence of a strong central authority and the proliferation of
armed groups have resulted in ongoing conflict and
humanitarian crises.
IV. The Iraq War (2003): The US-led invasion of Iraq was justified
on the grounds of removing Saddam Hussein's regime and
promoting democracy in the Middle East. However, the war
destabilized the region, led to the rise of extremist groups like
ISIS, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
people.
V. The Syrian Civil War (2011-present): Despite multiple UN
resolutions and diplomatic efforts, the international community
has failed to end the conflict and protect civilians. The war has
caused a massive humanitarian crisis, with millions of people
displaced and in need of aid.
Causes of failure:
Lack of Political Will:
 Domestic Constraints: Domestic political pressures, public opinion, and
economic constraints can limit a government's willingness to engage in
costly and risky interventions.
 International Disagreement: Disagreements among major powers or
regional organizations can hinder collective action and delay
interventions.
Inadequate Planning and Resources:
 Underfunding: Insufficient funding can compromise the effectiveness of
humanitarian operations, limiting the scope and duration of
interventions.
 Poor Coordination: Lack of coordination among different actors, such as
governments, NGOs, and international organizations, can lead to
inefficiencies and duplication of efforts.
Complex Security Environment:
 Hostile Terrain: Operating in conflict zones with armed groups and
unstable security situations can endanger aid workers and hinder the
delivery of assistance.
 Limited Access: Restrictions on access to affected populations can
impede humanitarian efforts and prolong suffering.
Unrealistic Expectations and Mission Creep:
 Ambiguous Goals: Unclear objectives and a lack of a clear exit strategy
can lead to mission creep and prolong the intervention.
 Overreliance on Military Force: Excessive use of military force can
alienate local populations and exacerbate tensions.
Cultural and Linguistic Barriers:
 Misunderstanding: Cultural misunderstandings and language barriers
can hinder effective communication and cooperation with local
communities.
 Sensitivity to Local Customs: Failure to respect local customs and
traditions can damage relationships and undermine trust.
Corruption and Mismanagement:
 Diversion of Aid: Corruption and mismanagement can lead to the
diversion of aid funds and resources, depriving those in need.
 Inefficient Delivery: Inefficient distribution systems can delay the
delivery of aid and reduce its impact.
Lack of Long-Term Commitment:
 Short-Term Focus: A short-term focus on immediate needs can neglect
the long-term challenges of reconstruction and development.
 Insufficient Post-Conflict Planning: Inadequate planning for post-conflict
reconstruction can lead to instability and renewed conflict.