Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

Words: 1576
Pages: 7

Throughout the past two or three decades, when talking about foreign policy, people often bring up the United States’ intervention in other countries such as Rwanda and Somalia, and more recently Iraq and Syria. These talks are by no means unwarranted and are crucial to the creation of new foreign policy in the US. There are many debates about whether intervention on the basis of humanitarian purposes is justified and whether the US should pursue this strategy. Humanitarian Intervention is justified and has proven to be effective. Many critics of humanitarian intervention point out the failures of humanitarian intervention, but like any foreign policy strategy, the costs need to be outweighed by the benefits and humanitarian intervention has …show more content…
Many scholars, governmental and non-governmental agencies, and others have come up with many different definitions of humanitarian intervention, but most of them are encompass the central definition. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed website, defines humanitarian intervention as “a use of military force to address extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their own government’s actions or failures to act” (“Armed Humanitarian”). Many believe that this definition may be too narrow. David Scheffer, a lawyer and US Diplomat under the Clinton administration, broadens the definition and states, “Humanitarian intervention should be understood to encompass… non-forcible methods, namely intervention undertaken without military force to alleviate mass human suffering within sovereign borders” (Scheffer). The addition of Scheffer’s definition is crucial to justification of humanitarian intervention because it adds a part that many people forget or look past, humanitarian …show more content…
One criticism of humanitarian intervention is that it violates a state’s sovereignty. According to Dan Philpott for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, sovereignty refers to “supreme authority within a territory” (Philpott). State sovereignty has been an international relations principle since the 17th century. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 solidified the notion that states have a right to sovereignty and that no one can violate it (Philpott). Critics believe that by going into another country, even on the basis of humanitarian reasons, the US is violating the core principle of international relations. Although state sovereignty has been important in the international sphere, the world if globalizing and constantly changing and drifting away from what is considered fundamental. The United Nations writes that in 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), an organization made by the Canadian government created a report, “The Responsibility to Protect” (“Rwanda”). In the report, the ICISS outlines the idea that state sovereignty does not just include the ability to control a given territory, it also encompasses the responsibility to protect a given territory and its people. If a state fails to protect their citizens, the responsibility