Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention
Even so, humanitarian intervention has been a hard test for the international community, because apparently goes against the core principles of non-intervention and state sovereignty expressed in the articles 2(7) and 2(4) of the Charter. Unfortunately the raison d’être of such scepticism underlies concrete mistakes of the UNSC and plausible misinterpretations around the use of force.
ID 9761726
Criticism on humanitarian intervention The conundrum that humanitarian intervention unavoidably poses is the juxtaposition of the words “humanitarian” and “intervention”. This association is found abhorrent by many NGOs, such as the Red Cross, but also prominently Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence expressed that “democracy and liberty became unholy if they are dyed of innocent blood”(Ghandi 1942). Other critical points instead, argued that the use of force for humanitarian purposes is actually an “overthrown of the international law” …show more content…
As argued before, the defence of this principle and the realization of this task rely on the UNSC and, as the article 39 of the UN Charter says, this is the only authority accountable in determining any threats to international peace.
Moreover, the Charter gives precise exceptions to articles 2(4) and 2(7), supplying guidelines for the use of the military action and hence, implicitly legitimising its existence as a political tool. The first justification provided is the uncontested right of self defence expressed in article 51, but fortunately this case covers a truly small percentage of the current international crises. Paradoxically, all justifications are challenged when the reasons for the intervention are violations of human rights. Despite scepticism, article 42 thoroughly considers military action when diplomacy has proved to be
ID 9761726
Criticism on humanitarian intervention The conundrum that humanitarian intervention unavoidably poses is the juxtaposition of the words “humanitarian” and “intervention”. This association is found abhorrent by many NGOs, such as the Red Cross, but also prominently Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence expressed that “democracy and liberty became unholy if they are dyed of innocent blood”(Ghandi 1942). Other critical points instead, argued that the use of force for humanitarian purposes is actually an “overthrown of the international law” …show more content…
As argued before, the defence of this principle and the realization of this task rely on the UNSC and, as the article 39 of the UN Charter says, this is the only authority accountable in determining any threats to international peace.
Moreover, the Charter gives precise exceptions to articles 2(4) and 2(7), supplying guidelines for the use of the military action and hence, implicitly legitimising its existence as a political tool. The first justification provided is the uncontested right of self defence expressed in article 51, but fortunately this case covers a truly small percentage of the current international crises. Paradoxically, all justifications are challenged when the reasons for the intervention are violations of human rights. Despite scepticism, article 42 thoroughly considers military action when diplomacy has proved to be