Register to read the introduction…
Life is the first priority. It is also the most serious violation of human rights known. Therefore, if a state chooses to intervene it must be the most severe form of intervention. However, as Locke stated, when one’s own preservation is in jeopardy, then it is not required. If the violation was one individual, it may not be prudent to start a war. Other means should be used. However, when genocide or any other form of mass murder is occurring, then there is little question that intervention ought to be chosen. For example, between February and September of 1988, Saddam Hussein murdered between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds (Human Rights Watch 2006). This is one of many examples of a case of intervention. The cost of American lives or a coalition of nations’ lives would be serious. However, the lives saved would likely have been far greater. In the recent war in Iraq, which began in 2003, the total number of lives lost by the United States is currently 4421, with nearly 32, 000 wounded (Department of Defense 2011). Compare that to the 50,000 to 100,000 lives lost be the Kurds and it is clear that many lives would have been
…show more content…
The real human rights issues, in which a state ought to intervene by force, are the issues of physical danger to the citizens of that nation. Otherwise, diplomatic pressure or sanctions would be the more appropriate means of intervention. Other rights, such as those mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and other rights that the international community may determine, are not rights, which would require the use of force, in order to intervene. Only physical danger would require force. However, the cost of lives versus those saved would play a factor, as Locke explained. It is the responsibility of others to preserve life, only when not in competition for one’s own. The final question is should intervention occur in every case, including all cases of endangerment of lives? The answer is that it would likely be impossible to
The real human rights issues, in which a state ought to intervene by force, are the issues of physical danger to the citizens of that nation. Otherwise, diplomatic pressure or sanctions would be the more appropriate means of intervention. Other rights, such as those mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and other rights that the international community may determine, are not rights, which would require the use of force, in order to intervene. Only physical danger would require force. However, the cost of lives versus those saved would play a factor, as Locke explained. It is the responsibility of others to preserve life, only when not in competition for one’s own. The final question is should intervention occur in every case, including all cases of endangerment of lives? The answer is that it would likely be impossible to