Is Intervention Ever Justified?

Words: 1327
Pages: 6

Is an intervention in another state ever justified? First, there has to be an understanding of what an intervention is, and Nye defines Intervention as the, “external actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state” (Nye 209). A justified intervention is when one state needs to intervene in another state for individual justice and human rights. Intervention is a liberalist idea because it is there to seek progress and liberty. So, it is then easy to say that the intervening that the U.S. did in Iraq in 2003 was not justified because there was immediate danger to the U.S. and or any of its allies. However, an intervened attack on ISIS would be justified because there is individual justice and human rights in danger. Liberalists …show more content…
Intervention is a Liberalist idea that seeks progress and liberty, while keeping cooperative security. Cooperative security has four points’ transnationalism, integration, collective action, and democratic peace theory. In other words cooperative security is trying to seek greater relations among states, while intertwining other states economies and working together for a greater benefit than one state would receive by acting alone. From a liberalist point of view intervention is needed if cooperative security cannot be maintained, as well as for individual justices and human rights. When it comes down to intervention being justified, only cases involving individual justices and human rights is it truly justified, but to maintain cooperative security it can go either way when determining if intervention in that particular case is justified. Nye says that for liberals, “the key international institution is a society of individuals. Therefore, intervention can be justified if it promotes individual justices and human rights; it is permissible to intervene on the side of “good”” (Nye 211). Nye is saying that from a liberalist point of view the only time intervention should be used is if your own security is at risk or for humanitarian efforts. Otherwise, intervention is unjustified in any other circumstance and is seen as another state intervening to assert their dominance …show more content…
By not intervening and helping groups who face massacre there is no respect for their autonomy or rights. Wye says, “In 2005, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution accepting a responsibility to protect people suffering from unavoidable catastrophe, but humanitarian intervention remains contentious” (Nye 213). Based on the UN’s decision in 2005, they took most of the responsibility to intervene in these kinds of situations, but other states can intervene if necessary as long as its justified. Walzer’s final exception to help secessionist movements is justified, “If a group of people within a country has clearly demonstrated that it wants to be a separate country, it is legitimate to assist its secession because doing so helps the group its rights and develop autonomy” (Nye 213). It is legitimate to assist a secessionist movement but when is a movement worthy of receiving assistance? Nye exclaims that, “Part of Mill’s argument was that to have a legitimate claim, a people must be able to seek its own salvation and fight for its own freedom” (Nye 213). As long as the movement can clearly demonstrate that they can secure themselves and protect their freedom they are worthy of assistance and it is