Humanitarian Intervention : Moral And Political Authenticity Essay

720 Words 3 Pages
Humanitarian intervention involves the use of military force to protect innocent people within a state from violence committed or condoned by its government. Presupposing an international framework predicated on the sovereign equality of states, it is commonly treated as an exception to the non-interventions principle, according to which the exercise of authority by one state within the jurisdiction of another is impermissible.

The concern here is that states might use humanitarian concern as a pretext for interfering in the domestic affairs of another state. This ambiguity pits the virtues of humanitarian rescue against the horror of having expanded opportunities for aggressive war and questions both the moral and political authenticity of interventions under the categorical belief that international action is initiated through considerations of self-interest. Although the example of Rwanda suggests that widespread atrocity will remain unchallenged without the provisions of exclusive benefits for the rest of the international community, Iraq demonstrates how the ideals of humanitarian intervention can easily be misused to justify force emanating from private political interests. The case for non-intervention is undoubtedly persuasive, but justifying it without exception remains contentious. Justice implies an inherent commitment to certain moral principles and to judge in the context of what is 'just ' or 'right ' is to make a moral assessment and evaluation. Concluding…

Related Documents