Humanitarian intervention is the use of the force of military to terminate human rights violation against another state. Either the definition is not sufficient enough for it does not cater for the non-military forms such as international sanctions and humanitarian aid. On this perspective, where non-forcible methods of intervention, it can be described as the intervention undertaken with the exclusion of military forces to eradicate human suffering in other countries (Kuperman and Crawford, 2014). The issue of humanitarian intervention has been very contentious, having a significant impact on thousands of people in different regions and countries of the world. Its rationale takes the form of two directions. Firstly, under the realist approach, it is the violation of the sovereign right of another state. In this case, the issue is not permissible. On the other hand, from the liberal perspective, the idea is permissible as it tends to protect the innocent and suffering, and punish wrongdoers.
Under the prime objective of ending systematic and massive human rights violation, humanitarian intervention is a very useful and practical means for a solution. Either, the moral basis should be established to ensure that political and material interests do not drive nations to conduct a humanitarian intervention. More importantly, national interests and sovereignty claims should not outdo the ethical obligations of the world nations to engage in activities that primarily are for the protection of the human rights of individuals (Weiss, 2018). This essay outlines the circumstances under which humanitarian intervention is an effective method to end the violation of human rights. It plainly demonstrates that the motives for intervening should be to preserve human dignity and rights.
Considering the notion of common morality, every individual has a right as a human community member. There is also a moral world governed by the customs, legal connotations, and religious rules that are established to provide the humans with a standard measure of living. Therefore, it is the obligation of every individual to help each other in times of need. Thus, common morality automatically links with humanitarian intervention. This is because human rights are universal rights that every individual is entitled to. If there exists a case in a part of the world where humans are being deprived their human rights, it is the obligation of the rest of the world to intervene and curb the situation. It is not an act of dignity for the world to sit quietly and watch injustices happen to individuals elsewhere. Such a situation leaves the world with no option rather than using methods of humanitarian intervention to ensure moral conduct and respect among the citizens whom their rights are being violated. In fact, it is not only an intervention but also a moral obligation (Janzekovic, 2017).
Although some philosophers like J.S Mill stood against humanitarian intervention, their argument underestimated the feelings and sufferings of the oppressed. Mill holds that interventions usually led to cutting off domestic struggles for liberty. He added that foreign intervention freedom was unable to last for long since the natives would not hold on to it. He failed to consider the urgency that comes with helping the oppressed in such situations. For instance, in Rwanda, the Tutsis were unable to form any groups to retaliate the killing and achieve freedom. In such a case, humanitarian intervention was the only effective way to end the continued mass killings.
The humanitarian intervention also receives strong support from the modern international law (Bellamy, 2017). Considering international affairs, it is defined as the deliberate involvement into a country by an external agency, to alter the policies, functioning and the objectives and goals of the country. Either, the international law indicates that the invading nation should only focus on normalizing situations and create new ideas and opportunities to these nations rather than focusing on material structures or gains. Therefore, by eradicating the violation of human rights, it is internationally accepted. It places a role in helping those being oppressed and holding the oppressors accountable for violating human rights to the international world. In fact, in the united nations charter, it is evident that extreme human rights violations lead to the justification of humanitarian intervention.
Moreover, in some instances, states are unable to take their primary responsibility of protecting their citizens. This happens when they are unable and unwilling to do so. As a result, the citizens of such a nation immensely suffer, and the leaders engage in activities that violate the rights of the individuals. The individuals, in turn, may be unable to retaliate from such leaders or rule and end up as victims of human rights violation (Woodhouse et al., 2016). Ethnic cleansing might occur, genocides and crimes against humanity. Such a case will call for the international community to come to the rescue of the citizens. It is only through humanitarian intervention that such a nation will extract peace and moral behavior upon its citizens. Therefore, this gives humanitarian intervention credit to the solution of the violation of human rights.
Many argue that human intervention invalidates the sovereignty of a nation. On the other hand, as stated earlier, it is the obligation of human beings to halt brutal treatment and the violation of the rights of the innocent. In some cases, the oppressed reach a certain stage where they cannot establish a national connection with the state. Thus, the sovereignty argument becomes disqualified. To free these individuals from the extreme oppression, it requires agencies of the world to invade the country and restore sanity. Waiting for the nations and the oppressed to come into terms might be unfruitful and hence lead to more sufferings as a result of the violation of the individual’s rights. Through the means of humanitarian intervention, the national policies can be restructured, and the violators brought to justice. This ensures that the rights of the citizens are respected and upheld.
Sometimes, the violation of human right rises international security concerns. The victims of violation include both the natives and the foreigners. Remember, any government or country must protect her citizens. Most of the countries in the world uphold ethics and the rights of her citizens. If their citizens happen to be in a country that is violating their rights, the governments ought to seek for means of liberalizing them. Moreover, it might look unethical and selfish to only free your citizens and leave the natives under the rule of oppression. In fact, it is an act of postponing the problem rather than solving it (Weiss, 2018). Therefore, the country would opt to free invading the subject nation and seek to reestablish normality and respect for human rights. In other words, the country adopts the humanitarian means of halting the human rights violation. The resultant outcome leads to the respect of the human nature, rights, and dignity.
Humanitarian intervention leads to the achievement of both short term and long term desired results of ensuring human rights are respected. By the short-term results, this intervention frees humans from oppressive rulers. It also puts a stop to extreme killings and discriminations on tribal lines. It ensures that a country that had been continuously violating the rights of the citizens is restructured to a country that obeys and respects human nature. More so, it initiates the process of holding those accountable for such mistreatments responsible (Collins, 2016). By long-term results, humanitarian intervention warns rulers or countries that might be willing to violate the rights of the citizens. It ensures that other countries uphold respect for their citizens hence making the world a better place to live.
Moreover, for humanitarian intervention to be effected and justified, there are some conditions that need to be considered. In fact, not all human rights violation calls for interventions. Some of the interventions may result in propagating hatred between nations (Kabia, 2016). Additionally, they may lead the people, and the world at large develop a negative attitude towards human intervention, without knowing that it is very essential at some points. These conditions have been discussed below.
The scope, magnitude, and nature of the problem should be studied keenly before deciding to invade a country. There should be extreme circumstances that are affecting the lives of the citizens of that particular country. Either, the use of force should be the last option in the humanitarian intervention process. Various human rights violations should be left in the hands of local stakeholders to deal with them. It is only during situations of ethnic cleansing, massacres, oppression of a large population, genocide, and extreme brutality that the international community can intervene (Kuperman and Crawford, 2014). In short, the violation of human rights must be too much that it seems unpractical and impossible to wait for a response from the locals.
Again, the consequences of intervening must be weighed against the decision of undertaking a humanitarian intervention. It is essential to understand that not all occasions of violation require intervention. Therefore, the risks involved must be thought first before taking the decision. If humanitarian intervention is anticipated to increased insecurity and widespread conflicts, it is more advisable to hold on until the right time to intervene comes. Otherwise, certain inevitable consequences may even lead to worse situations.
Also, humanitarian intervention should intend to benefit the population that is oppressed. Other intentions such as political and material interests should not be the primary intention of intervening. As far as the purpose of carrying out a humanitarian intervention is morally right, any agency can undertake the action. According to the argument of moralists, it is only the nations that respect human rights that should intervene. Global and multilateral bodies such as the United Nations are also entitled to intervening. Either, when single states intervene, their motives are widely questioned as they may seem to be driven by material or products gains. For instance, when the US intervened in Iraq, there were many suspicions and doubts from other nations regarding their motives (Pieterse, 2016). In fact, most states trust the UN with the process of intervention. It should then be used to authorize and determine which states can undertake military intervention.
In cases where the UN fail to show any signs or efforts of intervening yet atrocities are on the going, willing nations can intervene. It is not advisable to always wait for the UN to end these massacres. Either, the intervening nation should ensure that it does not use excessive force against the citizens. Also, it must consider the condition that their process should primarily benefit the oppressed. Moreover, after achieving a moral state in the nation and holding those responsible for the crimes accountable, it must exit the nation for it to re-establish itself by its beliefs and norms that respect the human nature.
Humanitarian intervention should always not be seen as the use of force against other nations. Although in some instances force is used, it should be noted that this force is used against the oppressor and not the oppressed. Its primary aim is defeating the leader and the groups forming the oppressors. Either, before the intervention, non-coercive methods may be adopted under diplomacy. Measures like sanctions have proved to produce desirable results when applied in rogue states. Now, when these measures fail to restore sanity, the force of military may be used (Janzekovic, 2017). Although the consequences may be unfavorable, in extreme cases of human right violation it is the only option.
Conclusion
Both ethical and moral arguments provide the importance of taking action to stop any violation of human rights to innocent individuals. The sovereignty of a nation should not be a reason to allow rogue leaders mistreat innocent and powerless people. Therefore, humanitarian intervention should be undertaken to curb this issue. More importantly, the conditions of valid intervention should be considered before a state or an agency can decide to conduct an intervention upon a certain nation. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the international world to always seek solutions to halt human rights violation by any means possible. Many may consider humanitarian intervention as a dictatorial act due to their negligence in considering the immediate help that is always needed to free the oppressed. They may hold on to their argument may be because they have never seen or experienced situations of torture and oppression.
Reference List
Bellamy, A.J., 2017. Humanitarian intervention. Routledge.
Collins, A., 2016. Contemporary security studies. Oxford University Press.
Janzekovic, J., 2017. The use of force in humanitarian intervention: Morality and practicalities. Routledge.
Kabia, J.M., 2016. Humanitarian intervention and conflict resolution in West Africa: from ECOMOG to ECOMIL. Routledge.
Kuperman, A. and Crawford, T. eds., 2014. Gambling on humanitarian intervention. Routledge.
Pieterse, J.N. ed., 2016. World orders in the making: humanitarian intervention and beyond. Springer.
Weiss, T.G., 2018. Humanitarian challenges and intervention. Routledge.
Woodhouse, T., Bruce, R. and Dando, M. eds., 2016. Peacekeeping and peacemaking: towards effective intervention in post-Cold War conflicts. Springer.
