Humanitarian Crises are Associate With Causes Of War And Peace Essay Example
Humanitarian Crises are Associate With Causes Of War And Peace Essay Example

Humanitarian Crises are Associate With Causes Of War And Peace Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 16 (4385 words)
  • Published: March 31, 2022
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Abstract

This study investigates the utilization of methods and strategies by nations to prevent humanitarian crises, frequently employing oppressive practices such as high power apathy and predatory politics. These actions result in violence directed towards minority groups. Insufficient comprehension of the political dimensions of such crises heightens the possibility of combatants utilizing aid endeavors as a catalyst for warfare.

The course offering in humanitarian and international politics often fails to acknowledge that humanitarian crises are primarily linked to significant causes of war and peace. The constructive approach towards international peace is mostly determined by the conditions in which countries intervene to address the increasing global humanitarian crises. Additionally, a pertinent critique of this approach involves a critical understanding of political and social criticisms explored in the study of civil wars, the emergence of genocides, and the strategies employed to res

...

olve these crises and prevent violations of humanitarian policies. As a result, this paper delves into the constructive and political attitudes that shape an optimistic perspective on the future of international relations.

The text presents the use of humanitarian intervention to foster international relations in countries experiencing civil wars and crimes against humanity. Additionally, it highlights the significance of politics in addressing these crimes, offering strategies to incorporate political mechanisms into humanitarian interventions. Conversely, the text discusses how political instructors can advance the study of human issues within traditional and global political systems such as the causes of war and American foreign policies, which in turn promotes international relations. By merging humanitarian studies with international politics, a more comprehensive political analysis is cultivated to raise awareness about humanitarian issues among a wider audience. Consequently, this exposure leads to

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

better approaches in which countries collaborate to enhance international relations in combating genocides and other crimes that impact humanity.

Introduction

The controversy surrounding humanitarian intervention has arisen as a result of the increase in civil wars and their impact on civilians in various countries. The discussion revolves around the international community's responsibility to intervene. International relations, which is a field of political science that seeks to promote peace between nations and shape foreign policies, plays a vital role in this debate. Humanitarian intervention refers to one state using military force against another state with the purpose of stopping human rights abuses. This intervention becomes imperative when a nation fails to protect its citizens from grave violations of human rights or actively suppresses them.

The UN security council uses various forms of intervention, including military force and economic sanctions driven by humanitarian reasonsfootnoteRef:4. Often, these interventions happen without the consent of the targeted state. Humanitarian concerns, such as the preservation of life and alleviating human suffering, motivate these interventions. As the world becomes more interconnected, international relations become increasingly significant. The numerous violations of human rights worldwide necessitate various humanitarian actions and international interventions. These actions encompass foreign aid and development programs conducted by individual countries.

In addition to the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, diplomatic and economic sanctions are other forms of foreign intervention in a broader context. International relations encompass the interactions between various actors in international politics, often overshadowed by civil wars and genocides. In 2011, policies were formulated by the United Nations Security Council with the goal of reducing increasing tension in international relations. The UN Security Council invoked the responsibility to protect, which required taking necessary

actions to safeguard civilians from attacks and civil wars.

United Nations adopted Resolution 1973 which endorsed member states to take necessary measures to remove the dictatorial government in Libya and other nations currently experiencing civil wars. The promotion of strong relationships between different member states is supported by both state and non-state actors including United Nations, the IMF, and the Amnesty International. International relations encompass the examination of foreign policies, global conflicts, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism, among other significant topics. Conversely, a humanitarian crisis is a sequence of events that poses a threat to the safety or welfare of a community.

In this study, organized efforts are made to draw alternatives to civil wars in order to reinforce the nation-state international behavior. This function encompasses both internal and external conflict that spans a wide area of a nation. The specific areas of study in international relations include diplomacy, international laws, finance, economics and other diplomatic histories. Foreign policies have placed increased focus on developing a more scientific and political understanding of the current international systems.

From the study, there are two humanitarian principles that aim to demonstrate different strategies for humanitarian interventions. The initial strategy supports peace by enhancing international law regarding international organizations. The alternative strategy encourages nations to employ their power to attain international goals in order to foster peace and maintain a balance of power among competing states. In the field of international relations, disaster management systems strive to facilitate humanitarian aid by providing assistance and undertaking actions that are designed to preserve lives.

Additionally, humanitarian aid aims to mitigate human suffering and advance human dignity in the wake of global turmoil and natural calamities. The

presence of policies on humanitarian intervention underscores the importance of being prepared for situations that undermine human dignity. When disasters occur, timing becomes a critical factor. Global organizations advocate for promptly offering relief services to communities impacted by civil conflicts, natural calamities, and other inhumane acts. Therefore, it is crucial to treat every theory and concept in international relations with utmost seriousness.

Practitioners of foreign policies and human intervention activities need to be grounded in reality in order to protect victims of humanitarian crises. However, it is important to promote the democratic theory of peace. The Clinton administration's foreign policies were aimed at promoting global peace and democracy. By implementing democratic practices, it was hoped that conflicts could be avoided, particularly those involving humanitarian issues. Unfortunately, there is now an alarming increase in humanitarian crises, which can be attributed to power transitions and the security dilemma in numerous countries.

Moreover, the rise of tension that poses a threat to international relations between various countries can be credited to Economic interdependence. Less developed nations embrace the idea of peace in order to gain economic benefits from nations involved in conflicts, like Syria and Libya. (5: Roberts, Adam)

Context

The absence of a political settlement in Syria has led to extensive violence targeting innocent civilians. The situation unfolding in Syria presents a grave humanitarian emergency.

The ongoing civil war in Syria has resulted in extensive devastation, with efforts to resolve the political conflicts reaching a standstill. The regime of Assad has not faced any action from Russia and China, leading to the blocking of United Nations Security Council decisions. This blockage occurred because both countries believed that the UN Security Council's involvement

in Libya had gone beyond its authorized role. As a result, international organizations are working on developing improved policies that would grant them permission to intervene and put an end to humanitarian crises in Syria and other nations facing similar conflicts. The subsequent section will delve into specific cases and conditions for humanitarian intervention in countries plagued by conflict.[6] 6: Pease, Kelly Kate, and David P.

Forsythe. "Human rights, humanitarian intervention, and world politics." Human Rights Quarterly 15.2 (1993): 290-314.

The 2005 UNITED Nations World Summit

The duty of each member state to protect its citizens from genocide and other human rights violations was affirmed during the United Nations world summit in September 2005. Global leaders agreed that if a state is unable or fails to fulfill this responsibility, intervention by the United Nations Security team for peacekeeping should occur.

The international community organizations were tasked with assisting in the protection of individuals facing such crimes. This involved implementing diplomatic, humanitarian, and other strategies for peacekeeping missions. The United Nations Security Council, during the summit, was authorized to intervene in situations where the state government failed to control the military or when there was a lack of national authorityfootnoteRef:7. The intervention was meant to be prompt, decisive, and in accordance with the UN charter, as well as in cooperation with regional organizations. The first instance in which the United Nations Security Council assumed official responsibility was in 2006 through Resolution 1674, regarding the right to protect civilians during armed conflicts.

August 2006, the United Nations summit authorized the deployment of United Nations security troops to Sudan to end the rising civil war (Bannon ; Alicia 1157). 7: Bellamy, Alex J.

"Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit." Ethics ; International Affairs 20.2 (2006): 143-169.

Debating the Right to Humanitarian intervention in the 1990s

Following the tragic humanitarian crises in Rwanda and Balkans in the 1990s, there was a heated debate within the international community on how to respond effectively and promptly when human rights were gravely violated. The central question of this debate revolved around whether nations possessed absolute sovereignty over their internal affairs or if the global community had a legitimate right to intervene for safeguarding human lives and relationships.

The Security Council's failures in addressing crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, leading to a significant loss of life, were criticized by the 2000 Millennium report. The report argued that combating human rights violations through humanitarian intervention should not be viewed as an infringement on sovereignty. It also mentioned the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as the first organization to propose the responsibility to protect. Established by the Canadian government in December 2001, the ICISS Commission aimed to discuss instances where international intervention was justified for humane reasons. The commission concluded that intervention was necessary when a state was incapable or unwilling to protect its citizens. On October 21, 2011, Resolution 2014 condemned human rights violations committed by authorities in Yemen (Evans & Gareth 703).

The resolution called for the peaceful transition of power in Yemen to address the human rights crisis caused by political instability. It emphasized that it is primarily the responsibility of the Yemen government to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens.

Humanitarian intervention in Syria (2012)

The Secretary-General of the United States highlighted the urgent need for

a political solution to end the destructive civil wars in both Syria and Yemen. The ongoing armed conflict in Syria, which stems from a power struggle, has led to countless fatalities and forced millions of individuals out of their residences.

The Secretary General has called on the government, UN Security Council, and League of Arab States to intensify their efforts in promoting unity and advocating for peace in Syria. The objective of the summit was to provide support to the Syrian government in achieving a peaceful political resolution to the conflict. The United States government, along with the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, strongly condemned ongoing human rights violations in Syria. These organizations urged the Syrian government to cease all hostilities promptly and fulfill its obligation to protect its citizens. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has referred the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court while urging immediate intervention by the UN Security Council to fulfill its humanitarian responsibilities.

All governments share the goal of protecting their populations from ethnic conflicts and crimes against humanity, demonstrating the international community's commitment. However, the lack of coordination and cooperation among the parties involved is causing the possibility of resolving Syria's civil wars through regional methods to diminish each day. Despite being aware of the humanitarian tragedy inflicted on its people and nation, the Syrian government does not make any effort to promote peace. The population affected in Syria experiences a severe scarcity of resources, leaving a significant portion at risk of starvation. Moreover, economic sanctions imposed by the European Union, United States, and Arab League further exacerbate the suffering in Syria.

The ongoing failure of humanitarian intervention

in Syria is attributed to certain Security Council members who consistently obstruct the implementation of fundamental principles of international law (Zifcak & Spencer, 59). In order to effectively prevent humanitarian crises in Syria, it is crucial to adopt timely procedures and reactions, especially when distinguishing between crimes against humanity and genocides is not evident to criminal courts or UN Security Council members (footnote 8: Evans, Gareth, Ramesh Thakur, and Robert A. Pape).

"Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect" is a correspondence article published in International Security 37.4 (2013), discussing the increasing opportunities for the United States government to engage in humanitarian intervention operations. The article highlights a specific instance where the United States failed to intervene in the Rwanda genocide in 1990, resulting in significant loss of lives. This failure was attributed to a lack of clear policies and international laws pertaining to humanitarian intervention. Additionally, experts have criticized the Obama administration's use of drones, arguing that it demonstrates a diminishing commitment to upholding sovereignty in global affairs (Radsan et.al 405)."

According to Professor Rosa Books, the implementation of the responsibility to support doctrine by human rights activists is causing a decline in sovereignty. For example, after the Second World War, there was a significant shift in how the United States approached humanitarian crises (Kiperman & Alan 105). Instead of focusing on discouraging communist expansion, the United States began prioritizing the fight against such crisesfootnote. This change was a result of the increasing security threat and the escalation of chaos and conflict worldwide. Even though these conflicts did not directly endanger US security, they led to numerous unjustified deaths.

Moreover, the war led to economic disintegration

and financial support for radical groups, including terrorists. The increasing movement of refugees created moral dilemmas in protecting and promoting human rights, posing a threat to international security and peace. Experts believe that the world is at risk due to outdated institutions of unipolar power and uncertain leadership that do not prioritize humanitarian concerns. The United States, a country with significant political authority, is at the forefront of efforts to fight for human dignity. Working alongside other nations, the United States aims to resolve regional conflicts and restore humanity's lost glory.

International organizations address humanitarian crises in order to promote democracy and global development. The United Nations Security Council emphasizes the importance of creating effective policies for humanitarian and peaceful operations, as these actions are necessary for advancing national interests. The severe cases of genocide in Rwanda, Syria, and other countries demonstrate the widespread moral injustice caused by humanitarian crises worldwide. Furthermore, these examples illustrate the potential danger and ethical obligation faced by other nations to intervene in such crises. However, countries contemplating intervention must carefully evaluate each situation, as most humanitarian crises are unique in nature.

Most of the needs of humanitarians do not require immediate interventions initially. Nevertheless, international organizations should prioritize investing in non-military solutions. These solutions encompass diplomacy, funding, and various other forms of aid. Military intervention should only be considered as a last resort, after all peaceful options have been thoroughly explored.

In summary, military intervention with a human rights justification is the only responsible way to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly examine each humanitarian crisis before deciding on the appropriate actions to take. Activists in the U.S.

human rights department believe that humanitarian interests should always take precedence over national interests. Consequently, it is important to assess the capabilities of military intervention, expecting that the military will collaborate solely in peacekeeping, state-building, and providing humanitarian assistance. Additionally, military personnel involved in peacekeeping missions must cooperate with civilian agencies to address these humanitarian crises.

Adam Roberts emphasizes the importance of implementing intervention policies that enable the military to effectively collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in peacekeeping missions. These NGOs should be empowered to build long-term relationships within divided societies, promoting peaceful international relations among nationsfootnote.

Methodology

The research will involve reviewing the UN charter and the International Committee of the Red Cross' stance on international intervention in international relations. It will examine the guidelines and laws outlined in the UN charter, as well as the humanitarian law that governs international intervention in cases involving human rights violations or genocide.

The text examines the potential of international intervention as permitted by the charter and humanitarian law. It analyses instances where armed force was employed by countries such as the US and NATO, and the rationale behind it which includes safeguarding human rights.

The UN charter

Following World War II, the formation of the United Nations aimed to establish global stability and peace. The charter emphasized the importance of human rights and dignity.

The organization's main goal was to promote human rights, which was reflected in its charter. The charter included laws that aimed to maintain peace and stability among member states. One of the most important laws dealt with the use of armed force in cases where humanitarian intervention was allowed. This raises the ethical question of

Jus ad Bellum (the right to wage war).

The United Nations (UN) charter addresses the circumstances under which a state or group of states can lawfully use force. The charter emphasizes the importance of refraining from the use of force in international relations. However, Chapter VII, specifically Paragraph 4 of Article 2, provides exceptions. Article 42 stipulates that the Security Council has the authority to take military action in the event of a threat to international security and peace.

This passage states that the charter guarantees the right to self or collective defense in Article 51 (Hollis, Martin, and Steve 38). The right to self-determination can also serve as a justification for intervention, but it is only accepted in practical terms. It is not acceptable to unilaterally take action or use force against a nation that commits human rights abuses or breaches humanitarian laws. Currently, there is no established international custom in this area (13: Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith).

"Explaining and understanding international relations." (1990). According to the law on humanitarian, those who commit grave breaches on its provisions should be punished and prosecuted as criminals. This can be done by either national or international courts formed specifically for this purpose, or by the international criminal court. Article 1 of the Geneva conventions emphasizes the obligation for individuals and collectives to respect and comply with international laws on humanitarian.

If the law is seriously violated, individual states or collective action by states can be taken, in support of the United Nations and in accordance with the UN charter (article 89). However, the focus of humanitarian law is not on how the United Nations and states address these violations,

but rather on the provisions outlined in chapter VII and VIII of the UN charter (Jayakumar, 123). The Security Council has various options available to respond to these violations, ranging from condemning the deployment of troops and partially or fully interrupting international relations as immediate measures. If an armed intervention is deemed necessary, the council can decide whether it should be carried out by delegated states or a regional security body under the UN forces.

Article 53 of the charter specifically states that authorization from the Security Council is required before any enforcement action can be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies. If the use of armed force is deemed necessary, international humanitarian law must be applied regardless of the reasons for intervention. There is ongoing debate regarding the application of law by UN forces, with differing interpretations on certain aspects of international humanitarian law, particularly those relating to the conduct of hostilities. The ICRC's study on customary humanitarian law has provided further insight into this issue.

ICRC's Role in Humanitarian Intervention

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is responsible for alerting nations to extremely serious violations of humanitarian law, such as cases of genocide, to ensure that the rights of humanitarian actors are respected.

It is not the responsibility of international law on humanitarian to specify the methods for resolving breaches, nor does it express any opinion on the legitimacy of operations in response to violations of humanitarian law or human rights. When violations are severe and prevent humanitarian action, they fall outside the scope of international humanitarian law and cannot be addressed through humanitarian means. However, the United Nations Security Council has a

crucial role in restoring peace through armed intervention as outlined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Before making such a decision, a comprehensive and consistent action plan must be developed that addresses the issue and its underlying causes (Lipman, 562). Additionally, sufficient facilities and resources must be provided to ensure genuine protection for the groups being targeted.

While it may be necessary to use armed intervention in extreme situations involving grave violations of humanitarian law and human rights, it is important for the international community to not see these interventions as inevitable. If armed intervention is used solely for humanitarian purposes, it would result in an abandonment of the responsibility to promote fundamental values and prevent conflicts as outlined in humanitarian law. Even in cases of armed intervention, humanitarian organizations should retain their freedom to make decisions and take action. The consequences of any armed intervention should also address humanitarian concerns, such as taking prisoners. The ICRC has a duty to uphold its mandate based on fundamental principles. Both the conflicting parties and the affected group should be able to differentiate between military entities and humanitarian efforts.

Any blurring of the distinction should thus be avoided (Simma& Bruno 985). The article 51 in the UN charter contains the exception to the prohibition on the application of force as it states; nothing in the charter impairs the inherent individuals or collective right of self-defense if an attack that is armed occurs to any member of the United Nations, till the council of security takes measures that are necessary for maintenance of security and peace. Such measures taken by members in exercising the right of self-defense should be

reported to the council and should not affect its responsibility under the charter to take such an action that is deemed necessary in maintaining and restoring security and peace and the states practices. For any new norm in the customary law to emerge, two elements must be present that are; opinion juries and a state practice.

Previously, nations did not use the right of humanitarian intervention to justify military actions. During the cold war, they relied on the broad understanding of the right to self-defense as a legal basis. Although these interventions had positive outcomes for human rights, states were hesitant to legally justify their actions using the right of humanitarian intervention. This led to doubts about the existence and commitment to humanitarian concerns in the international community, and challenged the justification for interventions. However, after the cold war, states started using the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to justify military actions.

The US and France both took action in Iraq, but the resolution 688 did not explicitly authorize the use of force. Similarly, the NATO bombing campaign in the FRY was a response to atrocities committed against Albanians in Kosovo (Massa and Sophie, 321). Some members of NATO reluctantly agreed to intervene without authorization from the council. However, the coalition states did not rely on any humanitarian doctrine for justification, instead favoring a more traditional rationale.

The references were based on political or ethical considerations rather than the context of legality. Similarly, other states like China and Canada did not approve of the justification, as they believed that such interventions had motives beyond what was claimed.

Discussion and Analysis

It is evident from the charter and humanitarian law that there

are instances when humanitarian interventions are authorized, and others when they are not. The understanding of what constitutes a threat to international peace has significantly expanded since the 1990s, now encompassing issues like mass displacements. In these situations, the UN Security Council has approved the use of force, even though many nations would have considered them to be internal conflicts.

On the one hand, there have been instances where states have used force without authorization from the UN's Security Council in order to respond to extreme violations of human rights. Examples of this include NATO's intervention in Kosovo and the protection of the Kurds in northern Iraq after the Gulf War. In certain cases, humanitarian intervention can be considered legitimate without authorization from the Security Council. These cases fall into two categories. The first is the status quo case, where military intervention in response to atrocities is only legal if authorized by the UN's security council or qualifies as an exercise of the right to self-defense. According to this view, NATO's intervention in Kosovo violated Article 2(4) of the charter. The second category is excusable breach, which states that while humanitarian intervention may technically be illegal without a mandate from the UN, it may be seen as politically and morally justified in exceptional cases.

The text discusses different approaches regarding the use of force in situations involving tension between the protection of fundamental human rights and the rules governing the use of force. One approach suggests creating an emergency exit option for such cases. Another approach involves reviewing the evolution of customary law to justify unauthorized humanitarian intervention in rare cases. This approach explores whether emerging norms

can ethically and politically justify intervention while also aligning with legal frameworks. Lastly, the text mentions the possibility of codification as another avenue to address this issue.

The argument made is for the need to establish a clear legal doctrine on right intervention, which can be achieved through codified legal means such as amending the UN Charter or issuing a declaration by the general assembly of the UN. The case against humanitarian intervention's legality is based on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force by nations without specifying any exceptions. The charter does not provide evidence for any other permissible reasons for using force beyond normal circumstances. This article not only bans the use of force, but also the threat of its use, making it very broad in its prohibition compared to any cross-border attacks. The presence of this clearly defined prohibition in the charter is not accidental.

The Security Council is responsible for upholding peace and preventing violations, as mandated by the charter. The only exceptions to this rule are self-defense and enforcement actions by the council as outlined in chapter VII of the charter19. There are no other formal exceptions that allow for the application of these measures.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New