Human rights: humanitarian interventions

Résumé du document

About the issue of humanitarian intervention, the moral aspect seems to be obvious. However, the question of the legality of an intervention is more difficult to solve. It's an international and current debate that can be summarized in this little interrogation, between legality and morality in the case of a humanitarian disaster, what has to prevail? What is the international duty? How can we react and moreover, have we to react? Firstly, we'll think about the definition of humanitarian interventions and analysis in the history. Then, we'll try to comprehend the legal issues at stake and the debate about the sovereignty. To finish with, we'll highlight the moral issue of intervention and the dilemma it implies.

Extraits

[...] This is a duty for nations and the international community”. Yes, it's essential to try to understand other values, it is essential not laying down ours principles as the only ones, not behaving as omniscient and pretentious people, but maybe can we consider that a life is a life, no matter of the religion, the regime or the values of the state in case? Because of our “laziness”, or because of a will of neutrality, we are ready to let some people abused other? [...]

[...] But, to allow an intervention, the UN procedure asks for the agreement of all the members of the Security Council, and we can infer that sometimes a veto or an agreement respond more to a political reason than to moral or humanitarian grounds. Thus the UNO seems to have taken a stand for something conflicting and not completely clear. They claim the supremacy of the state sovereignty but at the same time they maintain the principle of humanitarian interventions Therefore it's difficult to provide a final and definitive answer to this debate. In the case of an UNO intervention, the state has to give is permission. No soldier, even the UNO peacekeeping soldier can enter a country without negotiations and a statement. [...]

[...] It's difficult to justify an action illegal by the international law. How can we be sure our principles are more fair and just? On another hand, how can we, in our soul and conscious let human beings died? Shouldn't a human life be more important than the pride of a state? The respect of the sovereignty is an obligation, maybe the “supreme” right of a state, but there are some individuals' rights which are as superior and inviolable. Maybe can we consider that if something really hurt our conscious, and even if it may be a partial perception of things, we have to stop asking and react? [...]

[...] And even if it's for humanitarian reasons, the dilemma is not so easy to solve. We have to be realistic; we wouldn't accept an intervention in our country decided by others, without our agreement, which break out our sovereignty. It's a proof we are weak and not respected on the international scale. It may be seen as an aggression. Then the peacekeeping soldiers may be misjudged, and their actions no accepted nor respected by the population. It can lead to more violence and instability than before. [...]

[...] Human rights: humanitarian interventions About the issue of humanitarian intervention, the moral aspect seems to be obvious. However, the question of the legality of an intervention is more difficult to solve. It's an international and current debate that can be summarized in this little interrogation: between legality and morality in the case of a humanitarian disaster, what have to prevail? What is the international duty? How can we react and moreover, have we to react? Firstly we'll think about the definition of humanitarian interventions and analysis in the history. [...]