Humanitarian Intervention - Essay Example

of the of the of the Humanitarian Intervention International law restricts any intervention in the internal affairs of nations. As such, non – intervention is the primary objective of international law. Non – intervention is necessary for countries, because it enables them to act independently. Thus every nation gives primary importance to this concept (Jackson). The United Nations is based on the concept of sovereign equality of its member states. This principle is enshrined in Article 2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations. Although this principle is found to be adequate while defining international politics, it is surrounded by controversy with regard to its content. The international community is made up of sovereign states that must have equality. Moreover, the principle of sovereign equality is based on this concept of equality. However, it appears that some nations are more equal than others. The apparent reason for such superiority is due to the fact that the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN have excessive and extraordinary powers, in comparison to the other member states of the UN. Moreover, Article 1(1) of the Charter of the UN calls for collective and effective measures by its member states. The principle of sovereign equality requires the adoption of non – intervention in the internal affairs of any state. Therefore, there exists a contradiction between these two paradigms of the Charter of the UN (Minkkinen). To address the status of equal and sovereign states, efforts were initiated by the UN in the year 1946. The United Nations General Assembly had required of the International Law Commission to review this issue and to prepare a Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States. This measure was aimed to facilitate the member states of the new union with regard to state sovereignty. The Draft Declaration reiterated the principles of sovereignty and non – intervention, which were founded in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. However, the Draft Declaration was not officially adopted by the United Nations. Moreover, the rights and duties provided by the Draft Declaration had once again confirmed the contradiction that is inherent in the Charter. The rights of states are given in the sequel. These are, Article 1, which provides the right to independently exercise legal powers; Article 2, which provides the right to jurisdiction over objects and persons within the state; Article 5, which bestows the right to equality in law amongst other states and Article 12, which provides the right to self – defense. In addition, there are a set of duties, which are such that the rights and duties contrast each other. Article 3 imposes a duty to refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of states and Article 8 imposes a duty to settle disputes between states, by negotiations (Minkkinen). At present, human rights have been accorded a significant amount of importance; and measures have been developed to ensure that human rights are respected and implemented. The developed countries have taken this initiative. However, it is a fact that the participation of developing countries in the promotion of human rights is limited and several developing nations are ignoring them. Moreover, there have been human rights violations in those countries. All citizens are equal and all of them have equal rights. The fundamental duty of the political structures is to preserve and protect the basic rights of their citizens. These basic rights include the right to freedom, the right to ownership, security and the right to live without repression. Citizens contain sovereignty and its principles within themselves, and they can determine the law that they should obey. They also can determine the laws and policies of governance in their country. Self – determination is a natural right of the people. It can be ensured only when the people decide for themselves, as to which laws and policies should govern them. As such, this is possible only in a democratic system (Tiongjong). During the Cold War leftist nations did not have any difficulty in intervening in other nations’ internal affairs. Interventionism had been their slogan in those days, as they did not face any opposition based on political, legal or moral reasons. However, after the end of the Cold War, interventionism was strongly opposed. Intervention should be avoided on moral grounds because it cannot be a good policy. Intervention in any form should be opposed even though it is for a humanitarian cause. It should be replaced with restorative action, which should be carried out only by international communities like the United Nations. Intervention which is connected with liberal – left policies is mainly used for promoting the militaristic and economic interests of the intervening nation. It is not aimed at providing relief to society (Falk). Subsequent to the end of the Cold War, many states had experienced internal conflicts rather than conflicts between states. Those internal conflicts resulted in famine, heavy destruction and death of a considerable number of people in those nations. The international community wanted to suppress these conflicts by exercising humanitarian interventions in those nations. There were broad principles to provide help to these nations with conflicts, and there had been efforts to minimize the intensity of the intervention by the international community. Somalia was an individual state, which had collapsed; however, the international community’s intervention in Somalia had helped it to regain its previous status. Nevertheless, the diplomats who had taken interest in Somalia did not aspire to revive it, due to the paucity of their knowledge about its history and culture (Pham). The outside peacekeepers’ role is not limited to using force to reinstate order in countries, whose governments had failed to do so. It is also, about restoring peace and controlling the movement of people and other material at the boundaries of the dead state. In such interventions, it is necessary to use more flexible approaches. Such flexible initiatives would allow the people in such failed states, to rebuild their own futures and ultimately the state itself. More importantly the neighboring states would be benefitted to a greater extent, by flexible interventions, along the coterminous borders. Moreover, international organizations and major nations want to involve themselves in regions undergoing conflict, in order to restore peace, security and stability (Pham). The concepts of non – intervention and intervention have been justified in several ways. For instance, intervention would deprive the integrity of the sovereign state. These principles were not designed by any single treaty, but had developed gradually and were accepted by many scholars, politicians and citizens. Liberal political philosophers accepted the policy of non – intervention. According to Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, only the national border security would provide citizens with the capability to govern themselves in a truly independent manner. The principles of universal human dignity would also provide ways to override the concept of nonintervention when applied in different contexts (Doyle). However, the peacekeeping methods and strategies employed by the United Nations would not restore peace in protracted civil conflicts. In fact, some crises defy solution; and authorizations by the Security Council do not resolve moral and ethical dilemmas. Moreover, they are unable to predict when intervention is to be allowed. National autonomy and international responsibility are interdependent and need continuous moral and political adjustments (Doyle). The UN plays an important role in the world and should not be ignored or sidelined. Nations that require assistance for their reconstructing can rely on the UN. Some poor nations may require only material and technical assistance from the international community in order to improve their prevailing domestic conditions (Doyle). If a state or group of states, initiates military action that had been authorized by the Security Council, then it is called Collective intervention. Such collective interventions are aimed to curb infringement of human rights in other states. In contrast to this, if a nation initiates military action without the authorization of the Security Council then it is called unilateral intervention (Simons). Sovereignty rules protect nations from exploitation by imperial nations. This is particularly important for nations in the developing world. Furthermore, global economic justice imposes a duty on the affluent and developed nations to help and to assist the poor nations. The latter are required by such justice to distribute national income equitably amongst their citizens. The global political justice system requires all states to ensure minimum protection standards for their citizens. As such, legal and ethical barriers to violation of sovereignty are always at a high level. They are designed to protect national independence and safeguard against external intervention (Doyle). Works Cited Doyle, Michael W. "The New Interventionism." Metaphilosophy (Jan2001): Vol. 32 Issue 1/2, p212, 24p; (AN 4324252). Falk, Richard. "Hard Choices and Tragic Dilemmas." Nation (12/20/1993): Vol. 257 Issue 21, p755-764, 8p, 1bw; (AN 9312217631) . Jackson, Rashleigh. Non-intervention and intervention: CARICOM in action - Grenada 1979 and 1983 . September 2002. 06 May 2008 . Minkkinen, Panu. "The Ethos of Sovereignty: A Critical Appraisal." Human Rights Review (Jan2007): Vol. 8 Issue 2, p33-51, 19p; (AN 24097139). Pham, J. Peter. "Do Not Resuscitate." National Interest (Mar/Apr2008): Issue 94, p21-25, 5p; (AN 31567624). Simons, Penelope C. Humanitarian intervention: a review of literature . December 2000. 06 May 2008 . Tiongjong, Song. Human Rights, The Rights Of Self-determination And The Right To Freedom . 06 May 2008 . Read More