Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Humanitarian Intervention and Sovereignty
Do you think that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty? If so, how does it affect sovereignty? Should humanitarian interventions be carried out regardless of its negative effects on the sovereignty of the state in question? Blog away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
I think that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty, because there's basically no way to do it that's not invasive. A country which is trying to "protect" humanitarian rights almost always has to be aggressive and invade the "offending" country, or interfere with its politics as well. Such an intervention disregards sovereignty, because the "offending" country is no longer allowed to have complete control over its internal affairs. Its a tough question whether interventions should be carried out regardless of negative effects. That comes down to which is a higher priority: keeping balance of world/political power, or human rights. Technically for the good of humanity, we should be able to to whatever is necessary to ensure a good quality of life. But in reality, when we do that, we risk angering other countries and possibly even starting wars.
-Katie Head
Intervening in a country for humanitarian purpose must be a breach of sovereignty by its very definition, because the only way to stop those human rights violations is to have some strong affect on the said country. This is not to say however, that intervening in a country for such purposes is necessarily a bad thing either. In the case of a genocide such as Darfur, an intervention is absolutely necessary. However, in other cases, there can be certain gray areas. These gray areas are the result of differing opinions among cultures over the nature of what human rights' means. This is not to say that I support moral relativism though. The easiest example would be to compare the treatment of homosexuals in Canada (where they enjoy equal rights), America (where they enjoy most rights), and Iran (where they get hanged). A better example might be the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt who are persecuted and treated as second class citizens. This not only lacks the dire necessity that Darfur requires, but its not clear that an intervention would make the situation better, at least not for the short term. In the case of Egypt, trade embargos, which technically are a breach of sovereignty in some sense of the word ought to be carried out rather than a long term occupation that Darfur requires. Perhaps, the greatest problem though is that no country is free of human rights' abuses including the United State which gets criticized for its' decision to use torture or "extreme interrogation"
-Dan Greenbaum
(continued)
The direct result of lacking a "model" country for other nations to follow makes it very difficult to rationalize these breaches of sovereignty
--Dan Greenbaum.
I feel that it depends on the situation of the country and its citizens to decide whether it is considered to be acting against their sovereignty or not. The genocide in Sudan is a situation I feel is necessary for other countries to act on. The Sudanese government is killing it’s own citizens. It’s true that with the idea of “sovereignty” they should be able to do this without question, but that’s ridiculous. If there is no group within the country who can help solve this huge problem in Sudan, then it is necessary for power countries, which have the means to, to come in and help. This doesn’t have to mean completely tearing down the government of Sudan and starting over with how the savior county wants it run. However, it is likely that more than just sending over provisions and aid to help victims is needed. I think that the negative outcomes of involvement in Sudan are worth the risk. I don’t think there is anything much worse than having a government that kills its own innocent citizens. It might be difficult to decide which situations are important for power countries to become involved in, but it can be made. The decision should be made through a rational and non-partial process, if possible.
-Katie Dunn
In my opinion, humanitarian intervention is quite a complicated issue when dealing with sovereignty. I feel that although the idea of removing dictators that oppress their people may be the right thing to do, there is no question that it is still a violation of sovereignty to some extent. On one hand, the leader or group who is in charge and are committing atrocities towards their own people are technically just exercising the control they have in their country. This means that anyone who tries to impede on this is violating that leader's sovereignty. Although it may be an just and honorable cause to intervene in a country for humanitarian purposes, it is still ultimately violating the sovereignty of those in charge.
--Mike Poznansky
I feel as if a breach of a country's sovereignty depends on the situation of the country and its citizen's. To invade a country run by dictators or an area such as Darfur, which is suffering from genocide wouldn't in my mine be considered invading a country's sovereignty. This is because I feel as if the country has given up its right to govern free of external control. The most imporant thing, should be the focus on what is good for humanity and what is good to ensure each and every citizen in each and every country is ensured a good quality of life. If a country doesn't give this to their citizens, then in my opinion they loose all their rights to the idea of sovereignty.
-Eric Goodman
Intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is most definitely an infringement on sovereignty. By entering another country the invading country is telling the invaded country that they are not worthy of their own sovereignty. They are taking away the right of that country to control its own affairs. Because invasion of another country is such a serious matter it is not a breach of sovereignty that can be taken lightly. A nation must seriously consider how wrong the offending country is before they take matters into their hands. Humanitarian rights is not something to be taken lightly. The nation being corrected is going to be highly offended and react in an unpredictable way. Although it is occasionally necessary for such sovereignty to be broken, the nation breaking it must fully stand behind their cause.
-- bethany kravitz
I believe that humanitarian intervention is absolutely necessary in cases where one's own government/people is being permitted to harm its citizens. At this level, it is hard to say that the government of that country even has legitimacy - if it is killing its own people, then obviously that country is not acting for the good of its people, one of the main functions of government. Such actions on the part of the government seem to negate the validity of the question of whether or not such humanitarian intervention would be a violation of sovereignty. I believe that country's have a higher commitment than to that of their country - everyone has an obligation to uphold the human rights of people above the territorial sovereignty of a country's government. John Locke puts forth the idea of the social contract; he says that a country that the protection of the basic rights of people are so fundamental to a good society that their preservation is the central responsibility of a legitimate government and is the reason that people enter into a social contract with the government. If a government is denying its people these fundamental basic rights then the government itself cannot be legitimate, and the issue becomes a global problem; countries then have the responsibility of doing something about this breach of the social contract between that government and its people. If the government is not legitimate, then the issue of its sovereignty is negated. After all, why should the international community respect that country's rights over those of its people?
C. Faith Woodworth
The intervention of any state country in any other country's affairs is always a very controversial situation. However, no matter what side you are on, you cannot deny the definition of sovereignty. I am not against the war in Iraq, however, it is definitely an infringement on their territorial sovereignty. We entered their land that they had control over and took over. Although it was partially for humanitarian reasons, to liberate the people of Iraq from a dictator, it was a blatant infringement on the country's sovereignty. They no longer had the control over who or what was coming into their country and they could no longer decide what was going on on their land.
Andrew Deinert
When a country intervenes for whatever purpose, I think it hurts the country where it matters most, the ego. Many countries pride themselves on being self sufficient. So when another country intervenes, even in humantarian services, its definitely an attack on the countries soverignty. I'm all for the war in Iraq because that involved us with the terror plots. But in other situations I think its best to leave the countries alone. Hate to be so blunt, but it is survival of the fittest. If a country cannot maintain its structural integrity, then it needs to get reformed.
--Kristian Quiroz--
Humanitarian intervention is something that must be very carefully pondered before it is put into action. Violations of sovereignty aside, the unintended consequences of any such attempt could be worse than the current situation. The problem is that, to date, I can think of very few example of actual humanitarian interventions. Certainly, nations that intervene in the affairs of other nations with military might tend to cloak themselves in the mantle of humanitarianism. This was certainly the case with Napoleon when he invaded continental Europe (abolishing serfdom in many of the conquered areas). It is the case today with the invasion of Iraq. Would we have "liberated" Iraq if it did not have so much oil, or if it was not so strategically important? I doubt it, due to the fact that there are a multitude of humanitarian crises across the globe that do not seem to merit a similar response from the US. States tend not to act in such ways unless there is some kind of political and/or economic gain involved.
However, the original question concerned sovereignty. Whether or not humanitarian intervention violates sovereignty is, of course, relative to the situation. If the nation in question has been party to international agreements that would limit its sovereignty regarding the treatment of its citizens (Geneva, perhaps), then I think one could make a case for an intervention that does NOT violate sovereignty. If you make such an agreement, after all, you are sacrificing part of your sovereignty. Even in this case, however, such an agreement may not stipulate that military action be the consequence of a break with the agreement. So again, the question of whether or not it is a violation of sovereignty is relative to the particular circumstances.
In general, any humanitarian intervention probably would be a violation of sovereignty. The invaders likely would not have the backing of the international community (which is difficult to get) and probably would not be vindicated by international law, which is pretty opposed to aggression in general. So if we are going to discuss the question of whether such interventions should take place regardless of the effects on the nation's sovereignty, we really need to be more specific about the circumstances. We would have to do a utilitarian caclulation of the probable good results against the probable bad results. I do not think there is any general rule that can be applied here. The only two instances of humanitarian interventions that come to mind are the Kosovo War in 1999 (which is hotly debated) and perhaps the Vietnamese invasion of Pol Pot's Cambodia in 1979.
I think that intervening in a country for humanitarian reasons is sometimes justified and necissary, but overall i feel that it just disrupts and infringes on that state's sovereignty. It's impossible to intervene in a country where acts against humanitarian rights are being committed without intervening on the sovereignty of that country. To go into a country to protect the humanitarian rights there is to go into a country with force. This ruins that country's sovereignty because they have no control over something that is happening within their borders, therefore they are no longer sovereign.
The above comment is mine, I published it my accident without finishing.
Despite the fact that going into a country to aid it's people disrupts sovereignty, i think that overall, this intervention is still a good thing. Sometimes outside forces have to step into a country's internal affairs and straighten things out.
Matt Lontos
Infringing on sovereignty for humanitarian purposes is in-fact by definition a violation of sovereignty. Remember no outside source may intrude or control your territory. Today though, we ask questions of morality and the definition of sovereignty is more obscure because at what point can we cross the line? I think that for humanitarian reasons other nations should be able to intervene because no citizen, race, or other ethnic culture should be subject to harm by their country for no reason. By taking action of intervening, other countries are extremely cautious because it can lead to severe repercussions. Morality like I said before, has such a big impact on this situation because many countries know what is going on and would like to stop it but they won’t identify or acknowledge the issue because they are acting in their own self interest. A country obviously knows that if they go into a country and infringe on their sovereignty that they are guaranteed to trigger some sort of controversy with other nations. This is why the situation is so complex and most countries will not identify situations like Darfur in fear that sticking their nose in the situation can trigger a different power to cause trouble with them even if the cause is just.
- James Squillante
I agree that humanitarian intervention does generally coincide with an infringement on sovereignty, but as I stated before, I believe that there is a higher law than that which dictates the rights of states, and that law dictates the rights of man. The bases of democracy are the ideas of self-determination, the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. We claim to hold these ideals above all others, but if we do not act to support these same beliefs over the sovereignty of other nations infringing on the rights of their people, then we are in fact denouncing the very basis of our government. Countries have commitments to their people - if these commitments are not being respected, then that country is not taking into account the welfare of its people and does not deserve to be recognized as a sovereign government. Therefore, the issue of violation of sovereignty in true humanitarian intervention endeavors is ultimately irrelevant.
C. Faith Woodworth
Humanitarian intervention is certainly an infringement on another country's sovereignty; however, such a consequence must be overlooked. Although, the intervening country is, by the term's definition, to preserve the offending country's territorial integrity, a breech on sovereignty occurs still, for one country is controlling the actions of another country. Despite this, humanitarian interventions should still be carried out; although, they are rarely seen in a world plagued with instances of crimes against humanity. One such instance is the crisis occurring in Darfur. The government is funding and performing military action against the opposing liberation group and civilians to such an extent that governments around the world, including the United States, have declared the crisis to be a genocide. Still, little has been done to aid those in need. Humanitarian action, in such cases, is necessary. To allow such activities to occur in international society is gruesome. In many cases, the race or group targeted (in genocide or other crimes against humanity) cannot adequately defend itself against its agressor (which, in many instances, is the government). Hence, it should be the responsibility of the United Nations and the great powers to advocate and perhaps incite change through humanitarian intervention despite its effects on sovereignty.
--Ashley Mortimer
When thinking about humanitarian intervention and sovereignty, these two ideas definitely conflict. Invading a country most certainly violates sovereignty because the invading country challenges the authority of the country they are invading. Additionally, invading a country will most likely cause hostility and consequences. However, I think it is the duty of other states to intervene when there are humanitarian issues being violated. Such an example would be genocide. It is not morally right for a government to kill its own people such as in Darfur. If genocide is taking place, the government itself should not be in control and should not be recognized. The United States and the other big powers, in my opinion have an obligation to take action to ensure the safety of people around the globe, even if these people are not their own citizens. However, despite good intentions and being morally right, when a country does intervene, it clearly does violate sovereignty.
-Erin Donahue
I believe that while states have the right to be sovereign, more than the "right" should be included in this description. There should be a responsibility to protect the state and its people. In our international society, it should be a norm when talking about sovereignty to protect individuals from mass killings, and other violations of rights. If a state does not take on that responsibility itself, it falls on the other entities in the society.
I believe that we aren't doing enough to stop human suffering. We are doing too little too late. Rather than debating on what to call or classify human suffering after it occurs, we should put our energy into stopping it.
While I support humanitarian intervention, I think it should be stressed that we should work for defining a difference in the responsibility of protection and that of the "right to intervene." Establishing criteria for justifiable intervention is important. The sooner we accept responsibility, the sooner we can prevent suffering.
-Heather Starner
The idea of humanitarian intervention is based off what I have mentioned many times in class...the deteriation of sovereignty as the significant driving force in international politics.
There is no doubt that humanitarian intervention is a direct infringement on sovereignty, despite how much support nations (I will refer to nation-states as nations throughout) usually have when intervening for humanitarian purposes from the global community. However the fact that this is becoming more and more acceptable says a lot about how people feel about the affairs of nations.
The fact is, decisions by nations no longer affect only those within their own borders. The world is almost always aware of actions states take against their citizens, regardless of how hard they may try to hide it (ex, Myanmar), and in a world that has almost universally accepted some form of democracy or another, poor treatment of humans almost never goes without punishment. This does not say that democracies are more peaceful or morally sound in their foundation, however I believe people to be for the most part good and concerned about other humans, so elected leaders are likely to have similar beliefs (and if not, they are easily replaced).
Now by definition "humanitarian intervention" refers to armed intervention...but the reality is nations have other ways of intervening in the affairs of other states.
I think when people think intervention, they tend to think right away "Iraq" and "invasion"...sure invasion is certainly an overt tool used by nations to intervene in the affairs of other nations, but it is hardly the only one(nor the most common).
Other, more common examples of intervention are seen in the form of economic sanctions by different IOs such as the UN. Such sanctions put pressure on these nations to affect policy by limiting or restricting ingoing and outgoing trade...if you look at the UNs website you can see all of the sanctions currently in place and ever passed. The ones against Iraq in the late 80's and even early 90's are brought up a lot.
Other examples can be seen by smaller IO's, or even individual countries such as the ones in place against Zimbabwe by the US and the EU...even NGOs like the IMF place sanctions on countries for "humanitarian" purposes.
Some may argue that these sanctions are not actual "intervention", but the fact is this economic pressure goes a long way in affecting the actions of countries...and as a result I see little difference between physical intervention and "forced" policy changes.
However in both cases people must consider the consequences carefully...our "humanitarian intervention" in Iraq has resulted in severe instability in the area, resulting in many more deaths than we expected. Many argue that economic sanctions, though enacted with well intent, actually hurt the people even more and result in starvation, disease, and more death. This is why today the debate amongst states is rarely concerns whether intervention should be done because of sovereignty...rather wether or not such intervention does more harm than good.
-Nick Sarlo
The word intervening, has never been used to describe a peaceful situation nor does normally it have a peacefully and easy outcome in a political context. Intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes I believe is an infringement on sovereignty. Although one may believe they are providing a good humanitarian action, the government and the rights of the people are being compromised by the infringement of the other nation. The other nation affects the sovereignty nation by providing help to nation when they did not ask for help. Therefore, you undermined what is usually an unruly and unstable government, and by undermining the government, you are subject to hurting the citizens of the nation by the government’s response. I believe there are more neutral methods of negotiation than just intervention of a nation. The response is often defensive by the nation being attacked and will not solve any of the existing troubles. The negatives responses that typically occur are loss of innocent citizen lives. In addition to the death of innocence people, the negative effects on the sovereignty state lead to economical decline, and a national state of emergency. The negative effects on the sovereignty nation are far greater, and could hurt the humanitarian further if not executed perfectly; therefore, other alternations could be taken.
Robert O'Reilly
There is absolutely no question whatsoever whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of sovereignty; indeed, the very concept is the definition of such a breach, as foreign powers are intervening where the government in place cannot or will not address issues that have garnered the attention of the rest of the world. Even minor or benign intervention, such as the delivery of foodstuffs to starving populations, is a violation of interdependence sovereignty, as the government in place has no choice or control regarding the delivery of said aid.
- Luke Kaczmarek
I think that it is very hard to answer whther or not humanitarian interventions should be carried out regardless of the effects that they will have on the state. I agree with the positions that in the case such as the genocide in Darfur, it is unrealistic to stand by and watch the brutality and murder of so many innocent people. Even though intervening in this situation would compromise the country's sovereignty, I can't see how our country and other superpowers could simply not do anything. However, in other cases, where more harm will be done than good and when we are invading for mostly selfish reasons and not purely out of the interest of the citizens of the state in question (such as Iraq), I feel that much more consideration needs to be put into whether or not we intervene.
-- Katharine Gray
i definitely think that human intervetion should be carried out if there is a need for another country to go into another country for humanity then i think it should be done.. i feel humanity is more important than sovereignty because humanity is the whole human race its the people of this world. i know that the intervening of a country for humanitarian purposes is infringement on sovereignty but i still feel that sovereignty should be infringed if there is a compelling enough reason to infringe it.
Kristin iorii
Is humanitarian intervention an infringement on sovereignty? Yes, of course it is, but there are some more important issues to look at here. Humanitarian intervention in cases of genocide and other war crimes calls into question whether the state being intervened with should even be allowed to have sovereignty under the regime in charge. If such a regime is not capable of preventing such terrible crimes than perhaps they are unfit to be in charge of that state's sovereignty to begin with. Does this have negative effects on the state in question? Yes of course this does too, but one must also ask themselves how negative the situation already was if it was one requiring humanitarian intervention. Obviously, these are not always the circumstances. However, I do think that in some cases they would be questions to consider.
-Mike Werch
I agree that it is clear that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty, but I do not know if it is necessarily wrong. It clearly takes power away from the country being intervened and puts them in a position of being forced to do something which is clearly against their will (or at least the will of a ruler or ruling class). But, if the reason for the intervention is for the better of the society as a whole and will possibly benefit the majority of the countries inhabitants, is it wrong? I do not think it is possible to answer that question, of right or wrong, especially in this case. It seems as though you cannot tell what it would be like to have another entity making rules and decisions for you from afar unless it were to happen to you directly. SOmetimes, from an outside perspective, the right choice may seem clear and easy. But, from within a society, things are almost always more complicated and with any positive effects that may be reached from a humanitarian intervention, there are probably consequences that must be paid as well.
--Anna Post
I do think that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on that country’s sovereignty.
But, if it is possible to make a good improvement by intervening in the interest of human rights, in the affairs of extraterritoriality, then it should be supported. This was the primary force at work during the Clinton Administration in our intervention, through NATO, in Kosovo. We went after Milosovich, who had used acts of serious ethnic cleansing in his efforts to consolidate the former Yugoslavia under Serbian dominance, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives. We were successful, perhaps more so than we were in Somalia several years prior. Perhaps better intelligence permitted better discernment, at the expense of the sovereignty of each respective state. I think that sovereignty means very little in a failed state, as we have seen with our Kosovo and Somalia interventions. Sovereignty is essentially guidelines, and they mean much more in even a moderately stable state than they do in a state that feels it must resort to genocide.
Gordon Lippincott
Intervention in a foreign country for humanitarian purposes is a violation of sovereignty. The country or intstitution that is taking action is esentially stating that the country committing the human rights violations is no longer entitled to manage itself, or that the rights of the people occupying the country take precedence to the issue of whether the country should be allowed to manage itself. I agree with this, individual safety and freedom are definetely more important than the right of a corrupt government to manage itself. After all, if a government is not supported by the people, how long can they possibly expect to remain legitimate and in power. To help the people and save lives, intervention can often be helpful. However, the intervening country should only take action if the people want it, not when there is a disagreement or uncommon views on human rights. This will be taken as imperialism and imposing values. Also, when an intervention is carried out, sovereignty should be returned to the country soon, with a new legimate government elected by the people, not put in by the intervening power.
Brian Del Guercio
As seems to be the general consensus, humanitarian intervention is most certainly a breach of sovereignty. Sovereignty (Westphalian especially) is the idea that a country/nation is capable of taking care of itself, without any outside interference. Humanitarian intervention insults the self-reliant capabilities of countries and demonstrates to others that the country is not capable of handling its' own internal affairs and must be dependant on other's to properly run the country.
Humanitarian intervention is usually not designed for that above purpose, but regardless, those are the effects it creates.
Most people initiate humanitarian intervention believing that in the long run, humanity will benefit. When an intervention deems itself as a benefactor of humanity, then there is at least goodwill behind it's intervention. However, when humanity begins to suffer from any sort of intervention, something must be done (a plan changed, a moral obligation fulfilled) to alleviate any pressures that humanity feels from outside sources.
In general, humanitarian interventions open the ground for large debates. It will be difficult to find someone who is completely against humanitarian intervention, simply because the word humanity is rooted in the word. Who wants to be accused of being against humans? The moral aspects of the argument will often outwiegh the political aspects.
-- Megan Pettingill
I feel that intervening in a country for a humanitarian purpose definitly is an infringement of sovereignty, whether the outcome is good or bad. Countries have no right to make decision for other countries. The world is not set up so that countries should be allowed to do this. I seem to take the realist viewpoint on this matter. I feel that each country should not take action on another country unless there is a direct security threat to that country. Going into places for humanitarian reasons should not be happening as much as it is. If we cut down on this in the US, i feel that our overall wellbeing will be better.
Corey Wall
Intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is not an infringement on sovereignty because all humans are born with inherent rights and freedoms and if a governing body is taking those rights and freedoms away, it is others responsibility or duty to interfere in order to end the suffering within that state. Humanitarian intervention is also a principle in international customary law, making it a responsibility for all states to interfere when necessary. It is justified as being in the name of moral imperative, “we should not let people die” but is only justifiable when a massive violation of human rights occurs. The right and duty to interfere for the sake of humanity is not an infringement on sovereignty because it is recognized and practiced (hopefully) by all nations and states therefore making part of the rules and laws they are governed by.
Alison Burke
I think that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty. But I also agree it depends on the situation a country is facing and the help another country is trying to give whether it can be classified a complete infringement. Intervening in another country affects sovereignty in every definition sovereignty defines. Who is to say that any country has a right to decide what another country does or should do. Take for example the Iraq War, who are we to enter their country and define the lives they should live. The situation is tore in half. Some want us there, some don't and that is why intervening in any country other than our own can be seen as an infringment. But as a world we must pick our battles and help those in need and that is why if infringing on a country for humanitarian reasons is necessary, then it must take place.
-Kelley Thompson
Regardless of whether or not what a country does inside of its own borders is considered right or wrong, it is the country's right to perform these acts made possible by the notion of sovereignty. I do not agree that a country performing a genocide inside of its own borders is right in any way, but to forcefully stop a country from doing so would be an infringement on its sovereignty. In my own opinion, sovereignty should be violated in these extreme circumstances, but this is an imperfect proposal due to the fact that who is to decide what qualifies as a necessary intervention? Furthermore, what should be done to stop countries from performing such acts as genocide and what is to be done to the political administration once it is stopped? Who should act as the "World Police" in these types of situations? All these questions make the idea of intervention unclear. Countries for the most part should be left to make their own decisions. But this is not how it works in the world we live in today. Hegemons like the United States implant political, cultural, and economical structures which are favorable mainly to itself. This is a major infringement on the sovereignty of countries in South America.
Jordan Naftzinger
I feel that is important in helping citizens in other lands with humanitarian purposes but what exactly to do is a case by case situation. The United States of America has taken a position as the “world policeman” and feels that we as the strongest world power are obligated to take action when human rights are not respected by a state. I believe that sovereignty is infringed when powers such as the United States step in to change the path of action going on in a state but in the larger scale of things a loss in sovereignty is worth the protection of human rights. I am sure there are people and states that would disagree with this comment but in my mind these are my feelings and beliefs. Sovereignty is lost when countries take action within a different state and the state no longer has control over its own action and choices and is influenced by an out side entity. I feel that human rights are an extremely important idea and should be protected at almost any cost. The world is a much better place for all if events such as genocide were prevented from happening in the future.
Drew Majerick
I believe that intervention in any kind in another country is an infringement on sovereignty. Even if it is for the sake of humanitarian purposes, I think that it is still infringing on the other states sovereignty. Whether it is morally good or bad is another question that no one has the answer to. Intervention can be considered infringement on another country because it is a message from country 1 that says country 2 is doing something wrong and that country 1 will fix it for them. Country 1 is infringing on country 2's sovereignty because they are intervening in something that country 2 is normally in control over.
Humanitarian intervention is good in the view of the intervener, but the intervened may see it as a trespass of sovereignty. I believe that we should stop and think about consequences before we intervene. Otherwise, war may break out and even more lives will be destroyed. I think its just a matter of cost-benefit analysis.
-Chun (Ben) Choi
I think that most states are agressive and look to take over and conquer. Its all about surpassing one another. But when attempting to take over other governments I feel as if sometimes you should let them be and that allow them to rule the way they please. What right do you have to just go and interfere with what they having going on? Its the cockiness of feeling so superior. This helps stir up conflict between nations. It is an unnessassary situation.
-Jessica Stecker
My thought is that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty. Literally, intervening to another country involves invasion. I mean, preserving one's humanitarian rights often seems to be aggresive. In addition, intervention disregards sovereignty. Sovereignty means the power that a country has to govern itself. However, if another country intervenes to a country, it is obvious that it will interfere the country, and this will break the balance of world power. Also, we should live a good quality of life. If some one invades, it will harm us and ruin our quality of life. Thus, I say humanitarian interventions should be carried out. However, this seems to be happen alot in reality.
-Kim, Hyo Suk-
I would say that to get anywere with this topic, we need to define sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. To keep things simple, lets water the concept of sovereignty down to weather or not the state or nation is ok with whats happening. The other important term; humanitarian intervention is tricky because is it is funded by another government or is it privately run?
I am in the Marine Corps Reserve. I am with the 6th engineer support battalion. We are made of four companies and one of them is in the horn of Africa doing humanitarian relief. Are we challenging sovereignty? Well, what does the question depend on? If the counrty wants us there than I would say not entirely. Not entirely because Marines carry weapons. We would be quite a problem should the nation we are helping want us out and our gov want us there.
If the organization bringing the relief is welcome and unarmed, than how would they be a problem to sovereignty?
I think its hard to say that intervening in a counrty for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty without knowing the specific situation. I would say that this topic is case sensitive.
Stephane Stewart
While many of our international relation problems can be solved by respecting each states sovereignty, intervention based on humanitarian need must be allowed to take place. While it is a breaking of a country's sovereignty to come in, human life and human rights are and should be the most important aspect of the state and the international community. Looking the other way to human rights violations and genocide only present more stress on the IR community. It is very reasonable to believe that if a strong stance were taken on what constitutes the need humanitarian intervention that it could in time improve sovereignty between states.
-Matt Swank
I guess technically the invasion of another coutry even for humanitarian purposes can be considered an infringement of that nation's sovereignty. However, i believe that sometimes this is the only way to insure human rights around the world. However it can be considered the obligation of the United States and other global powers to intervene and bring security to areas inflicted with humanitarian crisis. This type of intervention is a main reason why coutries have such deep hatred for the United States and feel that the US always has a hand where it doesn't belong. In actuality, the US is simply insuring that all areas of the globe can enjoy the same civil liberties and human rights that are entitled to all.
-Brittany Monteiro-
I think that humanitarian interference is indeed, by both definitions of the terms, an infringement on that country's rights. For sovereignty, especially in the definitions of Westphalian and domestic, the state is supposed to have full control of the affairs in its borders, without interference of other states. I mean, if the intent is true to itself, and it is honestly done in an attempt to end suffering... or perceived suffering in the other country, it could be reasonably justified. But really, how can we know whether the intent is true or is simply being used in order to make an otherwise unacceptable interference.. acceptable?
The other point that bothers me is that humanitarian intervention is based upon a perceived suffering in another state, and the feeling of a duty to help. However, as we all know, not all cultures are the same, and what some cultures consider perfectly normal and acceptable behavior, we may see as barbaric or an infringement on the rights of the people of that state... but how can we be sure we're not being too ethnocentric in that judgment?
Intervening in countries for humanitarian purposes is technically a violation of sovereignty. But nations who want to respect the concept of sovereignty and to still engage in humanitarian efforts have found a way to get around this. Many countries intervening for humanitarian purposes claim that the offending nations have forfeited their sovereignty, therefore making it okay to get involved. Humanitarian intervention is absolutely necessary even if it weakens sovereignty. Intervention gives teeth to the international system, gives people around the world hope and discourages others leaders from causing harm to their own people.
Britt Chalmers
Intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty. However, when a state is not protecting its citizens and allowing mass killing and suffering it is a worthy cause for another state to intervene. We spoke about norms within international societies, one being human rights and therefore states should be driven to take action and enter armed into a sovereign state to free the mistreated. Yet then is sovereignty the main question at stake for intervention? Why wouldn’t states be at the forefront in aiding in Darfur? This brings into account the discussion of self and strategic interests considered before intervention occurs.
Francesca Carregal
An issue regarding humanitarian intervention is if the country is giving up its sovereignty to search for a greater solution. An example of this is countries looking to medical professionals to help with the AIDS epidemic. If the country is willing to allow the help, the country is giving up its sovereignty, however, it is understood that they are trying to improve the country as a whole.
Certainly if the country is acting in a sense against what those want, and ignores the help, then having sovereignty is not going to help anarchy. There has to be a balance between controlling what the country is doing within and what it hopes to gain abroad. If it has a solid balance, I do not think the independent country operating by itself is a valid definition of sovereignty. Achieving this balance of across and within borders presents a more accurate picture of sovereignty in the age of globalization.
Michael Molaski
Humanitarian intervention by a strict definition is unquestionably a violation of sovereignty.
I don't think preserving sovereignty just for the sake of preserving it is a justifiable reason to reject the idea of a humanitarian intervention it depends on the situation. A state that is the reason behind the necessity for a humanitarian intervention such as a state committing genocide against its own people is an example. Its claim to sovereignty could likely be questioned. In our worldview today it is not acceptable for states to act this way. This is one of the rationales used by the Bush administration to go war in Iraq. The administration used Saddam's actions against the Kurds as a humanitarian rationale on top of WMD.
It is also possible for a state to be too weak to protect itself or its people causing the need for a humanitarian intervention from other states. In this situation sovereignty to begin with was tenuous at best and the action if successful would be propping up a state's sovereignty rather than taking it away.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
Intervening in a country’s affair for humanitarian purpose is a breach of sovereignty. However, it is the only way to stop those human rights violations. In order to have a strong effect on the country violating human rights is to breach sovereignty. Intervening in a country for these purposes is not a bad thing but it still is breaching the sovereignty of that state. In the case of genocide, for example Darfur, an intervention is necessary. The government of the state in question is not doing its duty to the people and is hurting people. It is the duty of the other states in the global society to enforce the agreed upon terms of human rights.
Kaitlin Keelan
As a lot of my peers have indicated, it is difficult to deal with this topic of humanitarian intervention without relying completely on American ideals of what is "humanitarian." As an anthropology major, I have always been a believer in there being no universal truths, but sometimes I think some things are what they are. Genocide, I don't care how it is laid out, is just bad. There is no excuse for one nation to attempt to eradicate anpther. Also, there are several other ways to commit crimes against humanity. So, if a country is deliberately committing these crimes, I believe it's sovereignty should be infringed upon. Of course, the biggest case in IR today is Iraq. I do not support the war in Iraq because I feel we are there under false pretenses. I believe we are there to protect our economic interests. The US administration, however, says that we are in Iraq for humanitarian purposes. This, I believe, is somewhat true. Iraq was a horrible place. There were many crimes committed against humanity by Saddam and his officers. There was also a genocide against the Kurds. If this were the actual reason to invade Iraq, than I believe the US was justified to do so. However, it is important to also realize that this idea of humanitarian reform becomes laughable when those supposedly enforcing the reform act inhumanely.
-Meg Gallagher
When looked at directly and plainly, yes, humanitarian intervention is a violation or infringement on a country's sovereignty. This is because what is humantarian intervention. It is invading a country to provide help. You can not violate a country's sovereignty anymore bluntly. The problem, I believe, is that it is not whether sovereignty is violated but whether the humantarian aide is justified and wanted. Take Iraq for example, the Iraqi people were in desperate need of help. They were under the power of a tyrannical ruler who left his people in need. Most Iraqi people were happy when the U.S. intervened and relieved them of Saddam's power. The problem here however, was the prolonged stay of U.S. forces which most Iraqi's and Americans are opposed to. I believe that the best way to give humanitarian inventervention but not fully violate sovereignty is to get in, give aid and get out. Now I understand that a plan like that is not always so easy but it should be at least attempted. Humanitarian intervention will always infringe upon sovereignty but the real issue is whether it should be given and how much.
-Matt Atkinson
In the event of one country going into another with humanitarian intentions could be viewed as an infringement on their sovereignty. However, the world has an understanding that sovereignty is not absolute unless of course they have successfully obtained Westphalia sovereignty, which no country has ever had. If for whatever reason a country has people suffering within their borders, then why should imaginary lines stop them from getting help? If a country is inflicting this suffering upon their own people then they should be stopped, and if it is being done by disease or a natural occurrence then they should receive help. I think that the idea of sovereignty, while important can at times become an ego issue. Sovereignty is vital to the world of politics and international societies, but has limits. Humanitarian efforts should never be sacrificed, regardless of politics.
--Elizabeth Lodge
If it is done in the correct manner, humanitarian intervention doesn't pose a threat to a country's sovereignty. Without the use of force, a benefactor country can come to the aid of the oppressed in another country, without undermining sovereignty. Actions taken by benefactors such as ration dropping, or medical aid doesn't infringe on the authority of a country. Most of the time, aid is sent in the form of international humanitarian groups so it makes it hard to distinguish a clear violation of sovereignty. Because it is hard to trace where the aid is coming from, a break of sovereignty cannot be distinguished.
John Dalo
Humanitarian Inervention by defintion is an infringment of a nations sovereignty. To put Humanitaria intervention in laymens terms, it is going in and giving aid to a far off land that is not at all within the helper countries jurisidction. Although this is a breach of soverieignty i for one can think of many instances where this is not wrong. Few people oppose intervention when it is done in peaceful means. This is the best possible way in my mind as goods, services and supplies are given to thoose in need in a nonpeaceful way. Naturally however there will be some people opposed to these humanitarian efforts. I have no problem breeching the soverignty of nations whos goverments oppres their people becasue i hope, if one day god forbid the tables were turned and it was me being oppresed other strong world powers would do the same to assist me. Their is certainly some group that is certainly opresing the people in need otherwise their would be no need for an intervention. I have no overall oponion on how to handle such instances as i think there is no way but to handle them on a case by case basis. We must strike a blance between how much are we willing to try to help a given people at the expense of both our own safty and the safty and wellbeing of other parties within the nation.
- Dan Shainker
Of course humanitarian intervention is a breach of sovereignty. However in many cases, it is the right thing to do. The world community as a whole has a responsibility to help people being oppressed. Would intervening in Darfur be a violation of sovereignty? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Yes. Ideally, sovereignty should never be violated. However, in reality, sovereignty is violated often when one country feels that doing so is necessary for its security. So why not do it to help people being oppressed? Besides, humanitarian intervention is usually temporary and focused on providing food, etc or defending citizens, not taking out governments.
Josh Shannon
i believe that by definition it is an infringement on the country's sovereignty because the invading country is demanding new human rights laws to be applied. The country's leader is losing its right on how to manage and govern its people. Even though it is an invasion of ones sovereignty i believe that human rights should be a universal thing and that every country should treat their people equally. so if the people are not recieving these basic human rights then its ok to intervene because that country is failing to properly govern their people. Also there are times when leaders of a country gain so much power over its people and become power hungry like Hitler did and can treaten the sovereignty of other surrounding countries. So the invasion of a countries sovereignty is ok when it is benefital to the citizens of that country, to help maintain a balance of power and help prevent the next world war!
ddepina
It's an obvious infringement on a nation's sovereignty when we enter another country for any purpose. However, I believe that in many cases when humanitarian aid is being offered, those providing aid are welcome in the country. Very rarely do you see aid, in the form of food, medicine, etc. being denied by countries. It is difficult to define in one way what humanitarian aid is. It may come in the form, as others have mentioned, of military intervention to stop genocide. But it may also be the movement of the Red Cross into a country to provide medical relief to impoverished people. That being said, it depends on the level and/or type of humanitarian intervention as to weather it creates a negative effect on a state's sovereignty.
-Tanner Herpst
Humanitarian intervention in any form is clearly a violation of sovereignty. This seems to be an uncontested statement. The question seems to be, is it worth it? Is sovereignty important enough that no humanitarian intervention should take place? I do not think this is the case. While sovereignty is an one important ideal, freedom and liberty seem to me to be more important. Sadly, humanitarian intervention is very rare. Countries spend countless hours debating the exact definition of the term genocide, instead of acting on clear mass killings. Most of the time, when humanitarian intervention does take place, it is done for some economic reason. The US usually has no reason to help a country unless it believes that it could benefit economically by doing so. This trend should end. Humanity is more important then sovereignty and we should remember that.
-Ryan Davenport
I think that it is right down the middle on whether or not it is an infringement of a country's sovereignty. On one hand, you are your own state, and should be governing things on your own without others going in and taking over, as we learned already in class. However, if you have let things get to the point in your state where it needs intervention, then you can't look at it as an infringement. While it is a gray area on the exact purpose of the intervention and the aiding state's true intentions, for the most part, it shouldn't be looked at as an entirely bad thing. On paper, yes, it's an infringement, but in reality, intervening is there to help you regain the right to sovereignty that you have already claimed, by helping re-establish order or aiding your state in whatever area it needs. If the purposes are truly for aid and help, then it really can only be looked at as just that - assisting a state in need. The fact that you have been unable to sustain your state and keep it maintained without being looked at as needing aid, is enough reason to be receiving aid without rejecting it completely. However, with ulterior motives, it makes things much more complicated and in those cases, it is leaning much more toward an infringement of a state's sovereignty in my opinion.
Humanitarian Intervention is indeed an infringement on a states sovereignty. In my mind any type of intervention that is not directly requested by the state in question would be classified as a violation of sovereignty. If the Humanitarian effort is thwarted the states sovereignty is put into question even further. However in certain circumstances I believe it is necessary for intervention to occur. Incidents in which blatant crimes against humanity are taking place certainly warrant such actions. If intervention is to occur it is best to do with a collective force so that decisions can be made more for the good of the state in question rather than personal interests of an individual nation. An example of a similar case would be the Unites States invasion of Iraq which has been barely backed by other nations.
Ryan Shaw
The idea of complete sovereignty is, as a whole, too idealistic. So much so, that it has become harmful to the world society. Who are the only countries that enjoy something similar to complete sovereignty? Countries that are powerful enough not to allow other countries to intervene in their affairs.
Sovereignty asks countries to ignore morality in many cases - to ignore the genocide in Darfur, the famine in North Korea, or the human rights abuses in China. The United States and many other countries are capable of (and attempting to) solve many of these problems, despite all of these countries individual sovereignty. They are not abusing their capabilities as world powers, but rather helping people whose government cannot. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this - in fact it should be promoted. As soon as the concept of sovereignty is taken away, countries become much more compatible with international communication, and eventually an international society.
- Gabe DiPietro
I believe that while intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is indeed an infringement on that state's sovereignty, it is necessary. While it is argued that international relations rely on a different set of morals than most people, there still exists a sense of social responsibility on the part of nations to intervene when basic human rights are violated. Ending such terrible occurrences as genocide obviously outweighs a state's recognition of another state's sovereignty. I can only hope that state's will not lose this sense of responsibility to help fellow men and women when needed only to preserve the institution of sovereignty.
-Ann de la Montaigne
Humanitarian Intervention by definition is a direct violation of Sovereignty. If a state were to fully respect the legitamacy and independence of another state in would fully respect that states ability to self govern. This being said I still think that Humanitarian Intervention is necessary sometimes. If the world had respected the sovereignty of Germany durring the early 20th century who is to say what the world would be like today.
Humanitarian intervention is just as long as you are not intervening with America. In black and white terms intervening on any level in another country is a violation of sovereignty. Yet I believe that there are special circumstances when humanitarian intervention is necessary in order to keep the status quo globally. In third world countries, or in cases of genocide, humanitarian intervention must take place. Yet if any country was to call out America's wrong doings, and propose a humanitarian intervention, I'm sure people would think much differently about whether or not it is a violation of sovereignty.
---Kris-Ann Panzella
Humanitarian intervention definitely violates a state's sovereignty. However, does that really matter when people are being massacred in some parts of the world? Genocide is an unacceptable act of violence that should not be tolerated anywhere. If a state does not have the ability to stop genocide, then they have no choice but to give up a part of their sovereignty to those who do.
Roopa Sabesan
...(Continued from above). Maybe if there was humanitarian intervention during the holocaust, then six million Jews might not have died. Therefore, sovereignty cannot even be an issue when it comes to humanitarian intervention.
Roopa Sabesan
Humanitarian intervention is certainly the best reason to violate sovereignty. As an international society of humans, we should view all humans as having equal rights and access to life. If there is a humanitarian crisis due to a natural disaster, the world is ready to help and responds quickly, but if the crisis is due to an oppressive government, the world will sit back and watch for a while. Is this because of a violation of sovereignty? Suffering people should be helped regardless of the situation. Do you think that the people being mistreated care if you violate their sovereignty?
-Geoff Andersen
Humanitarian intervention by actions is certainly an intervention of a countries soveriegn rights. The fact that another country enters its borders and takes actions that the state is not performing on its own goes against their soveriegn rights. However this also begs the question that is a state really a state that cannot control its own borders. Or is still a state that cannot take care of its own population. Turkey used the term soveriegnty to perform genocide(depending on what state you ask). I do believe that it is neccesary for states to act on behalf of humanitarian causes but it does violate some definition of soveriegnty. This does prove that in the modern world nations should not be entirely soveriegn.
I apologize I forgot to sign my name to the previous anonymous post.
~Kevin Wright
Humanitarian efforts in forein countries are never a good idea for the simple fact that the country doing the intervening almost always has to aggresively persuade the other country to do an appropriate thing. In that sense, the humanitarian effort will tend to start out and be percieved as pushy and insistent. Alternatively, these efforts have a tendency to go against whatever the current country's philosophy is. Take the United States' intervention in Afghanistan: we (the United States and her allies) came into the country and ousted the Taliban's regime. However, the ramifications are that a majority of the Middle Eastern countries see us as bullies who tend to stick our noses into other people's business. It depends on the perspective you are looking at when deciding whether or not countries should intervene in other country's policies, but a vast majority of the time, it is not a good idea and ends up causing more harm than good.
I do believe that intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes is an infringement on sovereignty because there is no way of doing it without literally invading or offending the other country’s leader. I do, however, think that most of the times these interventions have a justified purpose. For example, the genocide in Rwanda needed intervention. The UN was criticized for its inaction, but in this case, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being murdered. Another way to look at intervening for humanitarian purposes is during the Holocaust. If we would have intervened, Hitler would probably have been so furious that it would have made the entire situation that much worse. I think whether or not intervening is an infringement on sovereignty depends on the situation. It’s hard because the leader of the country you are intervening could get offended and feel like outside help is not necessary. This is why we need to be careful about intervening, so the situation doesn’t turn into an even bigger deal, or have two countries go to war.
-Katy Johnson
I think it is an obvious infringement upon sovereignty. However, I think that the biggest concern of the world is human rights, even if countries and people do not act upon this shared belief. They say it is the most important concept. If it is considered more important then sovereignty then I believe it is justified going in to a country to grant human rights. The only problem is who gets to decide what is a human rights violation and if it deserves action. This I do not have the answer for.
-Ryan Wallace
Humanitarian intervention is in no way a violation of sovereignty. It is the protection of people by other nations. While it may interfere with the government, humanitarian intervention is not made with the intention of sovereignty violation. In order for a state to be sovereign, it must be recognized by all other states as sovereign. When a state allows its people to experience such awful conditions that intervention is necessary, it is no longer seen by the intervening states as a sovereign nation. It is seen as an entity needing assistance.
If the state feels that its sovereignty has been violated, that state really needs to get over it because the state should want what is best for its people. Clearly, what is best for the people in a case of humanitarian intervention is humanitarian intervention.
Oftentimes, humanitarian intervention has negative affects. While many may believe that this should deter intervention, it really has to be looked at in the grand scheme of things. Saving lives should be the number one priority. If intervention saves more lives that it doesn't, then it is absolutely a good idea. However, if the outcome of such an intervention will end up hurting more than it helps, it should be rethought. In most cases, there should be a way of intervening without having such a terrible outcome. Even if this intervention causes an interference of the intervening state's policies or agenda, it should be done as long as it will help the people in the long run.
--Jessica Jackman
Humanitarian intervention is a breach of a state's sovereignty no matter how you look at it. If actions have to be taken in that country without their consent it is violating that country's right to govern their own affairs. However, in certain circumstances such as genocide I do believe that intervention is needed. Noone should have to suffer through that and noone has the right to take human life no matter if they are just another civilian or the government. A government's purpose should be to protect their people not destroy them.
-Amanda McDonnell
Intervening in a country for humanitarian sake, I think, is a very difficult choice to make. On one hand, we are intervening to help them. Be it for food, water, or lack of government, we are doing it because we care. On the other hand, we can be referred to as the "World Police" if we do this. It isn't our business what other countries' problems are, some might argue. I believe that if it is for the right reason, we should intervene because we are the strongest nation in the world, and in order to keep that position, we need to help those not fortunate as us. If we dont, not only will their economy be affected, but ours will as well. As argued before, many might disagree that we dont have the right to do this, but it has to be done.
-John Nathan Colicchio
I think intervening in a country for humanitarian purposes isn't a violation of soverignty if the country in need of help asks for another county's assistance. I think if a country went in for humanitarian purposes without a clear invitation then it would violate that county's domestic and legal sovereignty. Now say a country is in a civil war and there is no clear winner in sight and there is genocide and famine, if one of the parties asks an outside country for help and the international comminuty backs their doing so I think the humanitarian aid would not infringe on sovereignty. If the state in question is doing things deemed by the international community to be a violation of basic human rights, and there is no possible end to stop said violations then i think the hummanitarian intervention should be carries out reguardless of the effects on the state. I think by the state in question treating its people bad enough to warrent intervention strips the state itself of its right to international legal sovereignty. The international community would not recognize a state that out of countrol.
-Brendon Butler
I do think that it is infringing on the sovereignty that the nation-state has, because it still is interfering on the affairs of the nation and their actions. The nation does not have complete control and as a result does not have sovereignty. However if it is for humanitarian interventions, it is almost as if we have a shared understanding of the moral dilemmas and values that, borders of nation-states should not be the determining factor of if one should help and can help another state and its people. Regardless of the negative effects to the sovereignty if it does more good than harm in regards to human rights humanitarian interventions should always be encouraged.
-Michelle Rana
Humanitarian intervention is definitely an infringement on sovereignty. Such intervention would conflict with the workings of an established government and this goes against domestic sovereignty where a country has the right to control its own territory. It could also affect interdependence sovereignty because to bring in aid, the ruling government would lose control of goods, people, and resources that are brought across the borders of the country. It is an extremely gray area in deciding whether or not sovereignty can be violated. If the majority of the international society (like through an organization such as the UN) agrees that something is occuring in a country that goes against their ideals, then they can justify violating the offending country's sovereignty. Situations such as the one in Darfur call for the international community to step up and insure the quality of human life and the right to live where it is currently being denied to citizens. In such a case, violating the sovereignty is warranted.
Well let's look at it from the view it should be looked upon. How would you feel if a country felt it was neccessary to do something with your country? It is regardless of exactly what that country is doing, the country must have consent of another country. Although aid to a country is a good thing (in theory) it can be construed as against the current government. Dependent upon how the regime is handling th ecountry. A current example could be Iraq. Although what we are today doing could be in some ways viewed as aid, in other ways it could be construed as infringing upon another nations soverignety. Now the question of whether or not that is good or bad is out the window, it is if that is an infrindgement on sovergeingty, which it yes, is. Overlall without a governments concent it is a infrindgement on soveriegnty.
-Christopher Fromme
Post a Comment