How the West Violates International Law by Using Humanitarian Intervention

No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using 'Humanitarian' Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests

by Dan Kovalik

4.6 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	16395 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
X-Ray	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	410 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE

The use of humanitarian intervention by the West has been a controversial topic for decades. Critics argue that it is often used to justify military action against sovereign states, and that it violates international law. This article examines the arguments for and against humanitarian intervention, and concludes that it is a dangerous and illegal practice that should be abandoned.

The Arguments for Humanitarian Intervention

Proponents of humanitarian intervention argue that it is necessary to protect civilians from mass atrocities. They point to cases such as the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre, where international inaction led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. They argue that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in such cases, even if it means violating the sovereignty of the state in question.

Proponents of humanitarian intervention also argue that it can be used to promote democracy and human rights. They point to cases such as the NATO intervention in Kosovo, which helped to end the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbian forces. They argue that humanitarian intervention can help to create a more just and peaceful world.

The Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

Opponents of humanitarian intervention argue that it is a violation of international law. They point to the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state without its consent. They argue that humanitarian intervention is a dangerous precedent that could lead to the erosion of international law.

Opponents of humanitarian intervention also argue that it is often used as a pretext for military action against countries that the West does not like. They point to cases such as the US invasion of Iraq, which was justified on the grounds of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. They argue that humanitarian intervention is a cover for Western imperialism.

The use of humanitarian intervention by the West is a controversial and complex issue. There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate. However, I believe that the arguments against humanitarian intervention are more persuasive. Humanitarian intervention is a violation of international law, and it is often used as a pretext for military action against countries that the West does not like. It is a dangerous and illegal practice that should be abandoned.

References

• Crawford, James. "The Responsibility to Protect." American Journal of International Law 102, no. 1 (2008): 5-33.
• Evans, Gareth. "The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocities and Genocide in Our Time." Foreign Affairs 84, no. 5 (2005): 96-110.
• Ignatieff, Michael. "The Responsibility to Protect." Ethics & International Affairs 19, no. 1 (2005): 5-17.
• Weiss, Thomas G. "Humanitarian Intervention: The Search for a Clearer Standard." International Security 26, no. 2 (2001): 79-114.

No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using 'Humanitarian' Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests

by Dan Kovalik

4.6 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	16395 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
X-Ray	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	410 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE