![]() Peace means more than the absence of an internationally recognized war. The central purpose of the United Nations, as set forth in Article 1, includes developing "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" and "encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." Humanitarian intervention promotes the most central aim of the organization, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. Intervention that promotes central principles of the UN Charter is permissible within certain parameters. Where a state is incapable of protecting the human rights of a political or ethno-national minority or is itself the perpetrator of violations against civilians, the use of force on human rights grounds stands as a legal option. Under one theory of justifiable intervention, governments that commit gross violations of human rights are said to forfeit any claims to the protection normally offered by sovereignty against intervention. To the extent that humanitarian concerns have gained influence over decision-making and the behavior of state and non-state actors, we can discern a significant normative shift.Īnother factor that must be considered is whether sufficient grounds exist to justify intervention in legal and/or moral terms. ![]() policymakers viewed humanitarianism as in the United States' interests. With widespread media images of humanitarian disaster creating a public groundswell in support of "doing something" in the Balkans, many U.S. ![]() While the Clinton administration had mixed motivations for the NATO action in Kosovo, including bolstering the credibility of NATO and protecting neighboring countries from a tide of refugees, humanitarian motives were among the concerns legitimizing intervention. Still, the motives of the Clinton administration and the NATO allied governments are pluralistic. ![]() The United States and NATO intervene when it is in their interests to do so. Rarely are motivations pure and altruistic. There is always much room for skepticism when it comes to the motives of intervenors. One of the fundamental disagreements of pro-interventionists and anti- interventionists is the credibility of claims to a humanitarian motive for the NATO action in Kosovo. The perceived requirement of humanitarian motivations can both constrain and enable state actors. Debate over the NATO bombing in Kosovo has concerned application of these factors. Careers, Fellowships, and Internships Open/Closeįour main factors should be considered in assessing the legitimacy of intervention in the name of humanitarianism: (i) the existence of humanitarian motives (ii) humanitarian grounds for intervention (iii) humanitarian means of intervention and (iv) humanitarian results.Wahba Institute for Strategic Competition.Science and Technology Innovation Program.Refugee and Forced Displacement Initiative.The Middle East and North Africa Workforce Development Initiative.Kissinger Institute on China and the United States.Nuclear Proliferation International History Project.North Korea International Documentation Project.Environmental Change and Security Program.Hyundai Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |