Politics
Humanitarian intervention poses a hard test for an international society built on principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the non-use of force. Immediately after the holocaust, the society of states established laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the mistreatment of civilians, and recognising basic human rights. These humanitarian principles often conflict with principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Sovereign states are expected to act as guardians of their citizen’s security.
Armed humanitarian intervention was not a legitimate practice during the cold war because states placed more value on sovereignty and order than on the enforcement of human rights. There was a significant shift of attitudes during the 1990s, especially among liberal democratic states, which led the way in pressing new humanitarian claims within international society. The UN Secretary General noted the extent of this change in a speech to the General Assembly in September 1999. Kofi Annan declared that there was a developing international norm to forcibly protect civilians who were at risk from genocide and mass killing. The new norm was a weak one, however. At no time did the UNSC authorize forcible intervention against a fully functioning sovereign state and intervention without UNSC authority remained controversial. States in the global south especially continued to worry that humanitarian intervention was a Trojan horse rhetoric designed to legitimate the interference of the strong in the affairs of the weak. At the same time, however, a group of liberal democratic states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attempted to build a consensus around the principle of the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect insists that states have primary responsibility for protecting their own citizens. However, if they are unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility to end atrocities and mass killing is transferred to the wider „international community‟. The
Armed humanitarian intervention was not a legitimate practice during the cold war because states placed more value on sovereignty and order than on the enforcement of human rights. There was a significant shift of attitudes during the 1990s, especially among liberal democratic states, which led the way in pressing new humanitarian claims within international society. The UN Secretary General noted the extent of this change in a speech to the General Assembly in September 1999. Kofi Annan declared that there was a developing international norm to forcibly protect civilians who were at risk from genocide and mass killing. The new norm was a weak one, however. At no time did the UNSC authorize forcible intervention against a fully functioning sovereign state and intervention without UNSC authority remained controversial. States in the global south especially continued to worry that humanitarian intervention was a Trojan horse rhetoric designed to legitimate the interference of the strong in the affairs of the weak. At the same time, however, a group of liberal democratic states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attempted to build a consensus around the principle of the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect insists that states have primary responsibility for protecting their own citizens. However, if they are unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility to end atrocities and mass killing is transferred to the wider „international community‟. The
Bibliography: Heise, J. (2005) Humanitarian Intervention: GRIN Verlag. Heywood, Andrew. (2007) Politics: Palgrave MacMillan. Holzgrefe, J. Keohone, R. (2003) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Politcal Dilemmas: Cambridge University Press. Ludlow, D. (1999) Humanitarian Intervention and the Rwandan Genocide: Volume XIX, No. 1 Spring. Max, Boot. (2006) The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power NewYork: Basic Books. Simms, B. Trim, D. (2011) Humanitarian Intervention: The History: Cambridge University Press.