The Contemporary Debate Surrounding The Legitimacy Or Not Of Humanitarian Intervention ( Hi )

2225 Words Nov 5th, 2014 null Page
The contemporary debate surrounding the legitimacy or not of Humanitarian Intervention (HI) is, to a large extent, based on the controversial interpretation of state sovereignty (Wheeler 2001: 550). In a society arguably built upon the principles of non-intervention, but with an increasing global awareness of and attention to the principles of humanity and human rights, the future of HI is subject to when and how these conflicting principles are resolved (Wheeler 2001: 551). In our post-September 11 world, HI has again been laden with doubts and scepticism regarding legitimacy, resulting in discussions of intervention in cases of grievous rights abuses being dismissed or discredited through the excuse of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Macfarlane et al. 2004: 977). Hence the need for a critical analysis of the relevant factors in the debate, which raises some important questions. Is armed intervention for the purpose of alleviating gross human rights violations within state borders justified in such extreme cases? Or is this an unacceptable assault on state sovereignty? What are the potential consequences to international order or abuse of power under the guise of intervention? Can a consensus ever be reached? For the purpose of this piece, I will firstly investigate each of the key concepts to be used. Secondly, I will discuss the pluralist and solidarist approaches to international society and their relevance to HI. Next, I will consider the key arguments within the…

Related Documents