Humanitarian intervention on moral grounds is easily justified but the use of military force is complicated as there are political and economic costs involved. In the post-cold war era, the discussion has been about whether it is a country’s prerogative to intervene in a sovereign nation’s affairs or it is a matter of moral obligation to protect the people from atrocities inflicted by their own countrymen.
Use of military force can be very costly in terms of casualties both civilian and of security forces. The benefits can be attributed to whether an intervention has restored peace, saved lives and provided long-term stability. Cost of intervention can be high and benefits minimum but by not intervening, countries may face even higher costs and risks due to spillover effects. The question should not be whether an intervention will have more costs or …show more content…
In order to determine if the intervention is the right choice, a cost/benefit analysis should be done because there is a moral, political and economic cost involved in an intervention.
The general belief is that humanitarian interventions save lives but that is not always the case. The intervention may end up supporting a group which is itself involved in atrocities. For example, in 1999, Kosovo National Army killed hundreds of Serbians and engaged in a number of human right violations. Another example is Iraq where so called liberation of people operation has caused a great deal of suffering.
Another cost of humanitarian intervention is the inevitable loss of human life. Use of military force results in unintended collateral damage. NATO has been accused of war crimes because of air strikes in Kosovo which killed more than 500 civilians. In recent history, war on terrorism has caused mass casualties due to drone
Use of military force can be very costly in terms of casualties both civilian and of security forces. The benefits can be attributed to whether an intervention has restored peace, saved lives and provided long-term stability. Cost of intervention can be high and benefits minimum but by not intervening, countries may face even higher costs and risks due to spillover effects. The question should not be whether an intervention will have more costs or …show more content…
In order to determine if the intervention is the right choice, a cost/benefit analysis should be done because there is a moral, political and economic cost involved in an intervention.
The general belief is that humanitarian interventions save lives but that is not always the case. The intervention may end up supporting a group which is itself involved in atrocities. For example, in 1999, Kosovo National Army killed hundreds of Serbians and engaged in a number of human right violations. Another example is Iraq where so called liberation of people operation has caused a great deal of suffering.
Another cost of humanitarian intervention is the inevitable loss of human life. Use of military force results in unintended collateral damage. NATO has been accused of war crimes because of air strikes in Kosovo which killed more than 500 civilians. In recent history, war on terrorism has caused mass casualties due to drone