Kosovo. Regardless of this, they continue to say that although they believe war was unavoidable, it does not mean that more could have been done to help prevent such a situation from occurring. Loretz, et al (1999) suggested that attempts to implement UN sanctions on Kosovo and Milošević’s government, along with the influence of the media may have encouraged further negotiations, with less civilian casualties and displacement. With regards to the Kosovo conflict, it is accepted that humanitarian intervention in this case was the acceptable move. However, the NATO strategy for combating the conflict was arguably flawed, leading to an estimated 700,000 Kosovars to be expelled from their country, with many more of the population displaced (Tweedie,
…show more content…
Just war theory has been discussed throughout history since the times of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, with it recently becoming a revived topic of discussion with the Iraq War in 2003. Brooks (2012) highlights two normative conditions in which just war is based upon. The first condition is that there is a need for there to be a just reason for enacting war, with a typical reason being the act of self-defence while ensuring the country and its citizens safety. The second condition is how the state will engage in the war, or how they will fight during the war. If the war is to be considered ‘just’ there should be “normative constraints” on how the war should be fought and how military action should be a part of the war (Brooks, 2012). A war is also classed as a ‘just war’ when a number of criteria are considered and fulfilled. These criteria are as follows: having just cause to go to war and having enough reason to enact a war; war being a last resort and that all the other options have been considered and are not able to resolve the issue; being declared by a proper authority that has the official right to decide whether war is the best option; possessing right intention and making sure that enacting war is the right thing to do; having a …show more content…
This brings into question the problem of sovereignty – a term used to describe a state which has full control over its own affairs and can govern itself (Reisman, 1990). The problem being that many of the world’s population is displaced, often named as ‘stateless’, which means there is no state to provide protection for them, along with very few ways to make sure that their basic human rights are being fulfilled (Yaffe, 2014). This links into the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine which allows the practice of humanitarian intervention – something which goes against the nature of sovereignty (Paris, 2014). The tensions between sovereignty and human rights become apparent when the idea of human intervention is brought to the fore. This is because sovereignty acts as a ‘barrier’, and within that barrier holds a set of structures, norms and laws. If these structures are compromised, it can lead to anarchy or absolute hegemony (Ayoob, 2002). In terms of humanitarian intervention, it can be perceived by certain countries as unwanted involvement; thus, undermining a country’s sovereignty is a practice to
Just war theory has been discussed throughout history since the times of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, with it recently becoming a revived topic of discussion with the Iraq War in 2003. Brooks (2012) highlights two normative conditions in which just war is based upon. The first condition is that there is a need for there to be a just reason for enacting war, with a typical reason being the act of self-defence while ensuring the country and its citizens safety. The second condition is how the state will engage in the war, or how they will fight during the war. If the war is to be considered ‘just’ there should be “normative constraints” on how the war should be fought and how military action should be a part of the war (Brooks, 2012). A war is also classed as a ‘just war’ when a number of criteria are considered and fulfilled. These criteria are as follows: having just cause to go to war and having enough reason to enact a war; war being a last resort and that all the other options have been considered and are not able to resolve the issue; being declared by a proper authority that has the official right to decide whether war is the best option; possessing right intention and making sure that enacting war is the right thing to do; having a …show more content…
This brings into question the problem of sovereignty – a term used to describe a state which has full control over its own affairs and can govern itself (Reisman, 1990). The problem being that many of the world’s population is displaced, often named as ‘stateless’, which means there is no state to provide protection for them, along with very few ways to make sure that their basic human rights are being fulfilled (Yaffe, 2014). This links into the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine which allows the practice of humanitarian intervention – something which goes against the nature of sovereignty (Paris, 2014). The tensions between sovereignty and human rights become apparent when the idea of human intervention is brought to the fore. This is because sovereignty acts as a ‘barrier’, and within that barrier holds a set of structures, norms and laws. If these structures are compromised, it can lead to anarchy or absolute hegemony (Ayoob, 2002). In terms of humanitarian intervention, it can be perceived by certain countries as unwanted involvement; thus, undermining a country’s sovereignty is a practice to