Talk:Humanitarian intervention

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I do agree that the humanitarian cause can very easily become simply another pretext for the intervention into the domestic affairs of developing nations by more powerful countries such as the United States. I completely agree with that. I do not think there's really much of chance we will be invading Russia anytime soon. But as Russia is such powerful country, the actions of their government are much more vulnerable to global scrutiny. I am not saying this is really an effective deterrent. But given the development of the global stage, and the increasing attention being paid to human rights, etc., it is really in the interest of every government to at the very least maintain the appearance that their treatment of their citizens is at some very minimum level. The actions of China and Russia, while they might not ever induce humanitarian intervention, given their position in global affairs, do receive some limited attention. Meanwhile the abuses by the governments of less prominent nations can quite easily exist under the radar. I think that if in fact it is within our interests that some level of human rights are maintained everywhere, we need to both try to understand how the humanitarian cause is used as a pretext for the pursuit of other interest and also calling attention to areas where it should be used. I am really not calling for more military interventions by the United States or any other Western nation. But given the position we have as citizens of these powerful nations, we do have an opportunity to at least call for attention to these issues.



I don't think the article is accurate.. firstly the distinction between the 'right' and 'duty' to interfere is not a fair one to make. it can be argued, for instance, that one has a moral imperative to act in cases of humanitarian intervention and this alone gives the right to intervene. Legalists would argue differently; following the law, there are guidelines as to when intervention is justified (the 'right' to intervene) but absolutely no compelling to do so (or 'duty'). The next mistake is to say that when these concepts 'blur' together, it is hard to separate the humanitarian motives from the political motives. firstly, those two have nothing to do with the duty or right to intervene. secondly, it is well argued that disinterested parties will produce a worse outcome in humanitarian intervention, and even well argued that it is no bad thing for a state to be self interested when carrying out humanitarian missions. self-interest does not always prevent an action from being, morally, the right thing. Oh, an the 'right to interfere'? i've never heard of 'humanitarian interference' - i don't think its an accepted term. I may re-write in a few months.. just wondering whether anyone else has an interest in this page or the subject matter and has any views on it! (Mattimeus 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leekh4, MNSteinig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive edits to page[edit]

I have made some fairly extensive edits to this page, including adding citations, re-shaping sections, summarizing different viewpoints on the issue, and trying to clarify some language and statements which were rather vague. If anyone has any feedback on these changes please let me know! These edits are made as part of Wikipedia's WikiProject United States Public Policy. Due to to my own constraints, I have been unable to address some of the other issues raised on this page including the "History" section, but hope others may do so.Disasterlady123 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Disasterlady123 if you mentthat you have a cartoave it call12345567898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.68.62 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterlady's edits[edit]

I'm very impressed by your update! The structure has vastly improved and it reflects the modern international law rather clinging to a minority view (R2P). I only skimmed the page but, when I find the time, I'll read it more thoroughly and provide some feedback. Thanks for your efforts! Daebwae (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I think this article is in need of a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.236.133 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Responsibility to protect[edit]

The 2001 'responsibility to protect' report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty had major implications for humanitarian interventions. For this reason, I feel it should be discussed in this article. The report sought to lay down clear guidelines for future interventions, based partly on previous mistakes. It also sought to change the terminology of the discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention. Whilst the report has not been controversial and has not been wholeheartedly embraced by the majority of the international community, it remains an important doctrine that continues to inform debates about humanitarian intervention and therefore deserves a mention here. I have added a paragraph on r2p under the section of 'modern doctrine' - however, I feel it could fit equally well as a stand-alone section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timschocker (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I propose to remove this part

For example, the Chechen population is probably in as much danger as of 2005 as the Kosovars were in previous years, but Russia is significantly more powerful in the realm of international relations than Serbia, and so an international action into Chechnya is much less likely.

as it clearly seems to me that the author of this excerpt doesn't know anything about the situation in contemporary Chechnya except the things he apparently read at 'kavkaz centre' or some another terrorists' web portal. You know, Russian government is not as completely jack-assed as you may think, as it perfectly understands the thing that if you try to constantly opress some population you can't control it at all. Instead of oppressing the population for no one sane reason, they literally bought one of the chehenian clans (probably the most civilized), and now some kind of peace and order is established in Chechnya (at least in the most populous areas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.177.215 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bias of this article goes much further. This made me laugh out loud: "sceptics have also argued that humanitarian intervention may have perverse consequences."

"May have"? Really? So-called 'humanitarian interventions' have almost always had disastrous consequences for populations supposedly being rescued: Iraq, Libya, Syria, ... the list is long, and counterexamples are few and questionable. Meddling in another country's internal affairs practically never benefits the ordinary people of that country; on the contrary, it usually results in killing a large number of them and reducing most of those left alive to chaos, malnutrition, and poverty. Most of the academic waffle in this article should be cut, and replaced by a balanced account of what 'humanitarian intervention' has actually accomplished in practice. Sayitclearly (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Doctrine: Legality of Humanitarian Intervention[edit]

This section lacks citations and a clear definition of what is meant by 'modern doctrine'. Knowing ICISS report helps to deduce the alleged modern doctrine, but the article should also serve people without prior knowledge.

Before talking about a modern doctrine, there needs to be clarity on what is meant by the 'current' doctrine or better the current state of international law. The current state of the law is to a large extent found in the UN Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against "territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". [1] Humanitarian intervention is inconsistent with the purposes of the Charter due to Article 2(7)[2]:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Still there are two exceptions under Chapter VII which article 2(7) mentioned. These are: Article 51 allows for the right to self-defence and Article 42 allows for a collective action through the UN.[3] In order to initiate a collective action by the UN under article 42, there must be a "threat to the peace" and the meassures undertaken must aim at restoring "international peace and security." (article 39)[4]

As genocide does not necessarily threaten the international peace and security,literal interpretation of the UN Charter is insufficient to deal with humanitarian intervention. As the article mentions in the "Definition" Section, this lead to a reinterpretation of "threat to the peace", so that genocide and ethnic cleansings are a threat to the peace. (Resolutions and citings should also be mentioned in the Definition section). This in turn allowed the UN to authorize intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia and Rwanda under Chapter VII.

The problem of collective actions under Chapter VII is that the Security Council must determine a "threat to the peace" before humanitarian intervention can occur. (article 39) Therefore in case of a deadlock, as was the case in the Rwanda genocide, the mechanism is useless to stop human suffering. After and because of the Rwanda genocide Canada has initiated the "Responsibility to protect" paper (R2P).[5]

R2P tries to avoid the deadlock situation in the Security Council by, additionally, allowing the UN General Assembly to authorize the use of force. As this is in clear violation to article 2(4) of the UN Charter, R2P needs a new doctrine of sovereignty.[6] Sovereignty is tied to the responsibility to protect ones people. If a government fails to do so, the Sovereignity is "transferred" to the United Nations. Therefore sanctioning an attack on the territory is no longer the use of force against territory or independence of another State (article 2(4) ). It's a military action within the sovereign territory of the United Nations. Accordingly article 2(4) does not apply and therefore the prohibition of the us of force is not an issue. Accordingly the UN General Assembly is just as well equipped as the Security Council to sanction the attack.

In order to allow for a redefinition of Sovereignty, the paper suggests that a overwhelming vote for a redefinition in the General Assembly is required but also sufficient.

This "modern doctrine" is extremely controversial and moreover no such General assembly resolution has been made in favor of it. Therefore it is essential to also include a more detailed review of the current state of law and then to show new developments on this basis. Daebwae (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
  2. ^ http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
  3. ^ http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
  4. ^ http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
  5. ^ "Responsibility to protect".
  6. ^ I need to get back to work, so I'll just quickly summarize the rest without citations. If anyone is interested I can supply them later.

Slaves[edit]

The quote from Friedman and James alluding to slaves is quite misleading and WP:REDFLAG without additional qualification. That is, the slaves in question were Bantus (see here) whose servitude as well as a skirmish on the Ethiopian border where some Italian troops were killed Mussolini used as a pretext to deploy forces in Italian Somaliland and Italian Eritrea in order to then invade Ethiopia. Specifically: "The dead Italian soldiers at Wal Wal, and the claim that Italy was bringing to an end appalling conditions of slavery, served as Mussolini's excuses for this build-up of forces in Somaliland and Eritrea" [1]. Given this, I have contextualized under which circumstances Mussolini indicated the foregoing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humanitarian intervention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Humanitarian intervention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanitarian_intervention&oldid=1202839332"