Somos una revista independiente que sobrevive gracias a tu apoyo. ¿Quieres ser parte de este proyecto? ¡Bríndanos un café al mes!

Humanitarian Intervention

After the violent protests in Venezuela, the civil revolt in Ukraine, and the continuous bombardment in Gaza, we might question «when  would be enough for countries to intervene for the good of humanity?» In the book “Saving Strangers,” Nicholas Wheeler posts the question of how far humanitarian intervention is a legitimate move in international society and focuses on the normative dimension, which refers to whether or not humanitarian intervention should be permitted in a society of states constituted by rules of sovereignty, non-intervention, and non-use of force, from a pluralist, realist, and solidarist standpoint.

According to the pluralist perspective, in the absence of and international agreement on the rules leading a practice of unilateral humanitarian intervention, states will act on their own moral principles, thus weakening an international order built on the rules of sovereignty, non-intervention, and non-use of force. To allow humanitarian intervention under this criterion is to accept that decision making will be based on cultural predilections of those with power.

On the other hand, realists believe that states are selective when deciding when and how they should intervene in a country, since they will always be motivated by national self-interest; thus, they will not intervene mainly for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian claims hide the real intention of national self-interest and legalizing a right of humanitarian intervention would lead to states abusing it. They also believe that unless fundamental benefits are at stake, states will not intervene, risking their soldiers’ lives and economic costs. Realists believe

Solidarists believe in the intervention of countries with the purpose of avoiding violations of human rights, while placing the interest on the victims of state power. There are four requirements that an intervention must meet to qualify as humanitarian: First, there must be a just cause; second, the use of force must be a last resort; third, it must meet the requirement of proportionality; and, finally, there must be a high probability that the use of force will achieve a positive humanitarian outcome. Taking this as the starting point for humanitarian intervention, solidarists face a problem; how to reconcile the moral call for for speedy action with the requirements previously explained. In this case, states must first explore other ways that are likely to proof successful in stopping the violence, unless it is clear that delay would result in irreparable damages. If this does not result in a positive outcome, then legitimate military target can take place. The consequences of these legitimate actions might be adverse; however, that is part of the burden of getting into such conflict. The ultimate result is to be able to establish a political order for human rights to be safeguarded. Solidarists believe that governments are entitled to the protection of not just their countries, but countries around the world and thus they are responsible for responding to these human rights violations.

In contrast, in his article, Robert H. Jackson explains that big powers do not have a responsibility or are in any way accountable for what happens with failed states. On the contrary, states have a responsibility with the international society. This relies on the fact that all states belong to an international community and even benefit from it. He believes that intervention instead of being a solution, represents a problem; the problem with humanitarian intervention for instance, is the level or extend of the interventions themselves. He uses the concept of surrogate sovereignty to explain how these so called failing states might end up conceding their identity and sovereignty in exchange of protection and order. In this same regards, he explains that there is a blurred line between imposing and offering democracy and capitalism to these failed states, which most have not yet found and embrace their identity as a country.

Although these views would vary depending whether you live in Canada, Israel, or Uruguay, how can we ensure less killings? What would produce more deaths; killing trying to stop the bombing or bombing trying to follow an ideology? Unfortunately those are questions that sometimes not even history will answer. And you, what would you do?

Hey you,
¿nos brindas un café?