In this essay I will be arguing that although non-intervention is understood as a norm in the field of international law, there are circumstances when humanitarian intervention is necessary in order to respond to serious abuse- such as when a state commits crimes or inflicts abuse upon their own citizens. (Baylis, Smith and Owens 479) Through explanation and analysis of the policies and processes of the United Nations, I will then be presenting arguments, involving the topics of human rights and moral duties, as to why humanitarian intervention is not only an effective solution, but also necessary at times. I will also examine a few of the common arguments against humanitarian intervention and go on to explain why they are invalid and flawed
…show more content…
In 1948, after the atrocities witnessed throughout the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has resulted in human rights being permanently instilled in international agendas. The declaration provides a list of rights that apply equally to everyone- regardless of their geographic location or the demographic that they belong to. Some of these rights address civil and political issues, such as equality before the law, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Others address economic, social and cultural issues, such as the right to food, the right to education, and the right to health care. (Baylis, Smith and Owens 464) According to the UN Charter, states must act in a manner that protects these human rights. In fact, human rights hold just as much importance in the Charter as peace and security do. In fact, the protection of human rights is outlined as one of the main purposes of the United Nations, in Article 1(3) of the Charter. Given the fact that human rights hold just as much importance as peace and security, there should be exceptions to the ban on use of force- in cases where human rights are at stake. During the Cold War, various states committed genocide among other serious human rights abuses. It has been argued by various international lawyers that humanitarian intervention does not go against Article 2(4). This article of the Charter explains that use of force is only prohibited if it is against political and territorial independence of a state- whereas humanitarian intervention is not against either of those things. (Baylis, Smith and Owens
In 1948, after the atrocities witnessed throughout the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has resulted in human rights being permanently instilled in international agendas. The declaration provides a list of rights that apply equally to everyone- regardless of their geographic location or the demographic that they belong to. Some of these rights address civil and political issues, such as equality before the law, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Others address economic, social and cultural issues, such as the right to food, the right to education, and the right to health care. (Baylis, Smith and Owens 464) According to the UN Charter, states must act in a manner that protects these human rights. In fact, human rights hold just as much importance in the Charter as peace and security do. In fact, the protection of human rights is outlined as one of the main purposes of the United Nations, in Article 1(3) of the Charter. Given the fact that human rights hold just as much importance as peace and security, there should be exceptions to the ban on use of force- in cases where human rights are at stake. During the Cold War, various states committed genocide among other serious human rights abuses. It has been argued by various international lawyers that humanitarian intervention does not go against Article 2(4). This article of the Charter explains that use of force is only prohibited if it is against political and territorial independence of a state- whereas humanitarian intervention is not against either of those things. (Baylis, Smith and Owens