For any intervention in the world, the international community should have some strong reasons. The United Stated Before considering the changing nature of humanitarian intervention under international law, it is necessary to consider briefly why humanitarian intervention was appeared as a justification for the 2003 war against Iraq. The cruel and brutal nature of the Iraqi regime is indisputable. For a long time, the former regime oppressed a system of persecution that contained widespread arbitrary captured, indefinite detention without trial, torture, rape, large-scale disappearances and prison cleansing. The Iraqi government engaged in arbitrary and widespread use of the death penalty and extra-judicial executions for both political and
…show more content…
War often carries enormous human costs, but we recognize that the imperative of stopping or preventing genocide or other systematic slaughter can sometimes justify the use of military force. For that reason, Human Rights Watch has on rare occasion advocated humanitarian intervention—for example, to stop ongoing genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
After, I discussed some of the important aspects that related by humanitarian intervention. Also, some of the important ways that international community could use to stop humanitarian crisis. Finally, I understand that Iraq did not have any humanitarian crisis to use of force. It is very difficult to decide Iraq war in 2003 was justification like humanitarian
War often carries enormous human costs, but we recognize that the imperative of stopping or preventing genocide or other systematic slaughter can sometimes justify the use of military force. For that reason, Human Rights Watch has on rare occasion advocated humanitarian intervention—for example, to stop ongoing genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
After, I discussed some of the important aspects that related by humanitarian intervention. Also, some of the important ways that international community could use to stop humanitarian crisis. Finally, I understand that Iraq did not have any humanitarian crisis to use of force. It is very difficult to decide Iraq war in 2003 was justification like humanitarian