Student Type
Graduate
University
Old Dominion University
Country
United States
Document Type
Conference Paper
Description/Abstract
This article will be broken into four separate parts. The first section will be whether or not there were legitimate legal grounds for the humanitarian intervention broadly. The second section will explore the moral justifications of humanitarian intervention and attempt to distinguish between cases that had a legitimate moral justification for the decision to militarily invade. That being said, there are no certain immoral thresholds for a crisis to reach that immediately prompts humanitarian intervention. The crimes against humanity in Bosnia and Herzegovina paled in comparison to that of the Rwandan genocide; however, humanitarian intervention was practiced far quicker and more decisively than the former case due to it being on the doorstep of Western European nations. The third section, and perhaps the most important when considering the effectiveness and necessity of humanitarian intervention, will consider if, as a result of the intervention, the area had a moral outcome economically, politically, and socially. Finally, the last section will comment that the findings for these three case studies show there are undeniable inconsistencies legally, morally, and intervention’s role in providing a more stable or moral outcome. However, a missing variable is near ubiquitous despite the former inconsistencies – that missing variable is political motives of major players that had influenced the decision-making process, and the case of non-intervention in South Sudan is briefly considered.
Disciplines
Comparative Politics | International Relations
DOI
10.25776/ab1p-w649
Session Title
Security in a World of Uncertainty
Location
Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room
Start Date
2-10-2023 1:30 PM
End Date
2-10-2023 2:30 PM
Upload File
wf_yes
On Whose Grounds? The Legality and Morality of Humanitarian Intervention
Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room
This article will be broken into four separate parts. The first section will be whether or not there were legitimate legal grounds for the humanitarian intervention broadly. The second section will explore the moral justifications of humanitarian intervention and attempt to distinguish between cases that had a legitimate moral justification for the decision to militarily invade. That being said, there are no certain immoral thresholds for a crisis to reach that immediately prompts humanitarian intervention. The crimes against humanity in Bosnia and Herzegovina paled in comparison to that of the Rwandan genocide; however, humanitarian intervention was practiced far quicker and more decisively than the former case due to it being on the doorstep of Western European nations. The third section, and perhaps the most important when considering the effectiveness and necessity of humanitarian intervention, will consider if, as a result of the intervention, the area had a moral outcome economically, politically, and socially. Finally, the last section will comment that the findings for these three case studies show there are undeniable inconsistencies legally, morally, and intervention’s role in providing a more stable or moral outcome. However, a missing variable is near ubiquitous despite the former inconsistencies – that missing variable is political motives of major players that had influenced the decision-making process, and the case of non-intervention in South Sudan is briefly considered.