Both Sides of the Story: Military Intervention In Protecting Human Rights
Through the analysis of many scholarly publications, it is clear that there is a debatable concern about the ethical act of military intervening to protect human rights. Either that a people appeal to consequentialism or deontologist, some people believe that intervention may strip Human rights since some people believe that without intervention some nations would have been stripped of their human rights and the intervention only aided them in the long run. Whichever it is, with case by case support we will try to examine the different concerns of both sides of the argument and we will conclude our results and opinion. Before this essay begins, we would like to …show more content…
They claim that "the UN commits more military and police forces to a peacekeeping mission" therefore decreasing the civil violence in foreign nations as for example they use the “armed conflicts in Africa”. (United Nations Peacekeeping 875) From a Consequential ethical point of view, one of the successful examples they provide is Sierra Leone’s civil war; they claim that before the UN intervened there was a lot of civil violence, but as more troops were deployed “the secretary-General delivered more positive evaluations of the situation” (875). They claim that there are two ways that peacekeeping can be done. Examples of what can be done: peacekeepers intervene in hostile attacks on civilians and they reduce problems by intervening and secondly physically guarding threatened civilians.(876) This is ethical from a deontological point of view because the motives are to preserve human rights, and on a consequential point of view they do end up keeping peace therefore the result is …show more content…
As Encyclopedia Britannica reads Hobbes in summary they claim that sovereign states have the right to set their own laws, have the right to their own economy , “ to treat their own citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for possible repercussions in other states” (Encyclopedia Britannica). It is clear from a deontological perspective, that a country has the right and duty to govern itself, if a country intervenes they are violating that countries’ rights of independency,“ freedom of conscience and religion[… ,]thought, belief opinion and expression, including freedom” (Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca). From a consequential point of view, the military intervention is an invasion; the invading country indirectly brings its religion and beliefs and indirectly affects another nation’s culture especially when military intervention lasts for a long time. Thus, as a consequence the country adapts to new ways of life and culture is lost. Whether or not the country intendeds to enforce its culture as a final result, the intervention does enforce culture therefore from a consequential point of view, they are ethically
Through the analysis of many scholarly publications, it is clear that there is a debatable concern about the ethical act of military intervening to protect human rights. Either that a people appeal to consequentialism or deontologist, some people believe that intervention may strip Human rights since some people believe that without intervention some nations would have been stripped of their human rights and the intervention only aided them in the long run. Whichever it is, with case by case support we will try to examine the different concerns of both sides of the argument and we will conclude our results and opinion. Before this essay begins, we would like to …show more content…
They claim that "the UN commits more military and police forces to a peacekeeping mission" therefore decreasing the civil violence in foreign nations as for example they use the “armed conflicts in Africa”. (United Nations Peacekeeping 875) From a Consequential ethical point of view, one of the successful examples they provide is Sierra Leone’s civil war; they claim that before the UN intervened there was a lot of civil violence, but as more troops were deployed “the secretary-General delivered more positive evaluations of the situation” (875). They claim that there are two ways that peacekeeping can be done. Examples of what can be done: peacekeepers intervene in hostile attacks on civilians and they reduce problems by intervening and secondly physically guarding threatened civilians.(876) This is ethical from a deontological point of view because the motives are to preserve human rights, and on a consequential point of view they do end up keeping peace therefore the result is …show more content…
As Encyclopedia Britannica reads Hobbes in summary they claim that sovereign states have the right to set their own laws, have the right to their own economy , “ to treat their own citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for possible repercussions in other states” (Encyclopedia Britannica). It is clear from a deontological perspective, that a country has the right and duty to govern itself, if a country intervenes they are violating that countries’ rights of independency,“ freedom of conscience and religion[… ,]thought, belief opinion and expression, including freedom” (Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca). From a consequential point of view, the military intervention is an invasion; the invading country indirectly brings its religion and beliefs and indirectly affects another nation’s culture especially when military intervention lasts for a long time. Thus, as a consequence the country adapts to new ways of life and culture is lost. Whether or not the country intendeds to enforce its culture as a final result, the intervention does enforce culture therefore from a consequential point of view, they are ethically