The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention constitutes one of the largest dilemmas in world politics and international relations today. The dilemma is born out of the conflicting desire for a state to pursue humanitarian intervention and how this act undermines state sovereignty. Even though sovereignty serves as a boundary to prevent the interfering and possibly damaging forces of other states, it often serves as an obstacle to humanitarian intervention. This paper will argue that foreign powers do (in some limited circumstances) have a responsibility to intervene in humanitarian crises but too often, these interventions are limited in their power to bring long lasting positive political change. Furthermore, by investigating why the intervention
This is based on the assumptions that; human nature is inherently positive and that international relations should be based on mutual cooperation. In essence, liberals are optimists, and believe that a better world is possible through means of a common humanity. The answers to the questions already posed above can be found in the realms of both realism and liberalism. Realist analyses can be extremely valuable in identifying the many political limitations which often hinder humanitarian intervention policies, whereas liberal analyses can be more useful in trying to understand which moral and ethical goals are most appropriate to pursue when considering an intervention (Lu 2007, 948). While both of these avenues will be explored, a liberal analysis will be employed to answer the focal question (i.e. whether or not foreign powers have a responsibility to intervene). This will later be contrasted with a realist analysis, offering a critical view of the current political limitations of humanitarian intervention. As such, before we consider the necessity of humanitarian intervention, let us first outline what humanitarian intervention is. According to Holzgrefe (2003), humanitarian intervention is defined as: “…the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at
Historically, the default position of the international community has been one of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, consequently a realist view of humanitarian intervention would tell us that this is because intervention does not work in the current statist system. With the firmly held ideas of rational self interest, power and sovereignty at its core it’s difficult for humanitarian intervention to be reconciled with the realist school of thought. Lu (2007) suggests that “realists are inclined to think that the idea of humanitarian intervention is too morally ambitious: it is fanciful to think that states will use military force in a disinterested, neutral and impartial