Humanitarian intervention in today’s modernized society has turned away from the idea of “maintaining peace in the world” and has instead turned towards a way for westernized countries to maintain their power and influence in the world. Humanitarian intervention has been criticized for abuse of the system, selectivity of missions, and the idea that it may not even work. Instances such as the Rwandan genocide, the issue of Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia, and the Sudan crisis are all examples of the misuse of the idea of humanitarian intervention. It has been defended as being a way to enact the United Nations (UN) Charter and instills an enforcement of the idea of common humanity. However, this notion leads to the debate on what constitutes
…show more content…
Ideas of classical peacekeeping are based on Chapter VI of the UN Charter and involves the establishment of a UN force, under UN command, to be placed between the parties of dispute after a ceasefire (PG. 310). This type of peacekeeping is not as controversial as its counter-part: peace enforcement. Unlike peacekeeping, peace enforcement “which is designed to bring hostile parties to agreement, which may occur without the consent of the parties”. A problem with UN peacekeeping has been the lack of neutrality on the part of the UN and because of this, it has been targeted through examples such as the intervention of Somalia and of the former …show more content…
The alliance provided led the UN to intervene (as some would put it) rather quickly. The humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was justified for two reasons. The first reason claiming that Serbian actions in Kosovo had created a humanitarian emergency and breached international legal commitments. The second being that the Serbs were committing crimes against humanity and challenging common humanity. While these arguments seem legitimate, many of the motives carried out by NATO included motives of self-interest instead of just the need to solve a crisis. This then brings about the issue on whether states should be acting in the interest of themselves or the state they want to
Ideas of classical peacekeeping are based on Chapter VI of the UN Charter and involves the establishment of a UN force, under UN command, to be placed between the parties of dispute after a ceasefire (PG. 310). This type of peacekeeping is not as controversial as its counter-part: peace enforcement. Unlike peacekeeping, peace enforcement “which is designed to bring hostile parties to agreement, which may occur without the consent of the parties”. A problem with UN peacekeeping has been the lack of neutrality on the part of the UN and because of this, it has been targeted through examples such as the intervention of Somalia and of the former …show more content…
The alliance provided led the UN to intervene (as some would put it) rather quickly. The humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was justified for two reasons. The first reason claiming that Serbian actions in Kosovo had created a humanitarian emergency and breached international legal commitments. The second being that the Serbs were committing crimes against humanity and challenging common humanity. While these arguments seem legitimate, many of the motives carried out by NATO included motives of self-interest instead of just the need to solve a crisis. This then brings about the issue on whether states should be acting in the interest of themselves or the state they want to