Under what circumstances do you think states should intervene in humanitarian crises?

Résumé du document

There is no denying that human rights are nowadays part and parcel of international relations. The humanitarian crises in Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kosovo have obviously shown that humanitarian intervention proves to be a controversial right. In this subject it is essential to analyze the current situation all over the world as far as respect of human rights is concerned. Needless to say that between western economic powers that are able to intervene in a foreign country and human rights norms-violating underprivileged countries there is a huge gap to bridge. This state of fact is due to the emergence of a new world order in which values like democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights were supposed to be top priorities. And the debate about the concept of humanitarian intervention is in a way a piece of evidence that international actors need clear definitions of both the notion of sovereignty and of a duty to set up humanitarian interventions. In fact, I am personally convinced that humanitarian intervention is based on a moral and ethical right. That is why I will try to show to what circumstances this obligation to protect human rights can apply. The first part of this essay will define the concept of sovereignty by highlighting its controversial nature. In a second part I will try to state the consequences that such a definition has on the political context of a humanitarian intervention. This will bring me thirdly to draw the line between real crisis, that is to say states of emergency, and situations that do not require humanitarian interventions.

Extraits

[...] So we have seen that accused states' position towards other human rights-promoting states is essential if one want to make a relevant analysis of the political context of a possible humanitarian intervention. This brings us to another side of the question, namely social and political elements that make in concrete terms a humanitarian interfering absolutely necessary. Let's try now to answer the question that proves to be the crux of the matter here: in which cases is it necessary to intervene? [...]

[...] Thus military interventions must not be pushed aside. We can catch Holzgrefe and Keohane's definition of humanitarian intervention again: humanitarian intervention can be defined as threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied”. So, if ethically justified violence can be used without any hesitation; I am convinced that all is question of legitimacy. [...]

[...] That is why I will try to show to what circumstances this obligation to protect human rights can apply. The first part of this essay will define the concept of sovereignty by highlighting its controversial nature. In a second part I will try to state the consequences that such a definition has on the political context of a humanitarian intervention. This will bring me thirdly to draw the line between real crisis, that is to say states of emergency, and situations that do not require humanitarian interventions. [...]

[...] Some people argue that the use of violence do not prove to be legitimate because it would simply come down to repeat violence, and so we would be caught in a vicious circle. I completely disagree with this viewpoint, because we must not forget the existence of what I call a moral imperative, that is to say that a state or political community willing to undertake a genuine humanitarian intervention should be prepared to risk the lives of its own soldiers to save the lives of those in the threatened community. Indeed, circumstances of humanitarian interventions are clear: issues at stake are sheer human lives. [...]

[...] for one, cannot help thinking that the authority of a state cannot solve all the problems that occur in its society. If a state could sort out all social and political problems, it would be logical to give it an almighty political authority. But this is wishful thinking! Of course the state has got what is called legitimate violence”, however the fact still remains that checks and balances are useful and above all necessary. The facts speak for themselves: what would be our world without the NGOs and especially the international human rights system's opposition force? [...]