I. INTRODUCTION
The international community appears to believe that there is a direct correlation between military intervention and cessation of gross violations of human rights that are being committed by the government of a state, supposing that there will be an improvement in the conditions for those against whom these violations are being committed if there is a legal humanitarian intervention. This assumption is largely based on the concept that if an intervention is legal, it will be controlled, carefully planned, and done to an international legal standard. NATO has intervened in both Kosovo and Libya over the past 16 years, however only one of these interventions was deemed to be “legal” by the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC found …show more content…
The legality of humanitarian intervention has been debated in the policy and legal community for several decades. Whether or not humanitarian interventions are per se legal and are an implied limitation on the international legal prohibition on the use of armed force by states is still not a settled matter. In general, issues pertaining to the use of armed intervention within state boundaries to intervene in what are perceived to be gross human rights violations are taken to the UNSC and debated by that body as to whether intervention by the international community is …show more content…
On the whole, it is evident from the literature that states are much more likely to resort to large-scale genocidal-type activity when there is perceived to be an uprising by a rebel faction that has significant popular support (Kuperman A. T., 2008; Crawford & Kuperman, 2006; Smith, 2002). Given that many states start these interventions as a result of a rebel uprising in a region, the outcomes of a humanitarian intervention may be deemed a success, even when it may not be a positive result in the eyes of the recipient state (Kuperman, 2008). Furthermore, as Nzelibe argues, the fact that there may be a given outcome may actually incentivize rebel or state actors to take negative action, with the expectation that the international community will respond and attempt to achieve a certain end (Nzelibe, 2008). Western and Goldstein examine the impact of humanitarian intervention and actually note it to be a positive evolution, indicating that the increased skill with which the international community applies force to prevent human rights atrocities is an improvement. They indicate the metric of success to be the mitigation of violence against civilian, however there is no discussion as to whether this is sustainable in the absence of continued international military pressure (Western & Goldstein, 2011). The reasons
The international community appears to believe that there is a direct correlation between military intervention and cessation of gross violations of human rights that are being committed by the government of a state, supposing that there will be an improvement in the conditions for those against whom these violations are being committed if there is a legal humanitarian intervention. This assumption is largely based on the concept that if an intervention is legal, it will be controlled, carefully planned, and done to an international legal standard. NATO has intervened in both Kosovo and Libya over the past 16 years, however only one of these interventions was deemed to be “legal” by the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC found …show more content…
The legality of humanitarian intervention has been debated in the policy and legal community for several decades. Whether or not humanitarian interventions are per se legal and are an implied limitation on the international legal prohibition on the use of armed force by states is still not a settled matter. In general, issues pertaining to the use of armed intervention within state boundaries to intervene in what are perceived to be gross human rights violations are taken to the UNSC and debated by that body as to whether intervention by the international community is …show more content…
On the whole, it is evident from the literature that states are much more likely to resort to large-scale genocidal-type activity when there is perceived to be an uprising by a rebel faction that has significant popular support (Kuperman A. T., 2008; Crawford & Kuperman, 2006; Smith, 2002). Given that many states start these interventions as a result of a rebel uprising in a region, the outcomes of a humanitarian intervention may be deemed a success, even when it may not be a positive result in the eyes of the recipient state (Kuperman, 2008). Furthermore, as Nzelibe argues, the fact that there may be a given outcome may actually incentivize rebel or state actors to take negative action, with the expectation that the international community will respond and attempt to achieve a certain end (Nzelibe, 2008). Western and Goldstein examine the impact of humanitarian intervention and actually note it to be a positive evolution, indicating that the increased skill with which the international community applies force to prevent human rights atrocities is an improvement. They indicate the metric of success to be the mitigation of violence against civilian, however there is no discussion as to whether this is sustainable in the absence of continued international military pressure (Western & Goldstein, 2011). The reasons