Does collapse of the state, genocide or ethnic cleansing justify intervention?
$3.95
4 word format
document in english
international relations
presentation
published 14/07/2008
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 0 times
SummaryAlthough the dilemma of intervention is not new, it emerged as a main topic of debate after the Cold War. The dilemma is whether to intervene in countries where gross human rights violations occur or to respect the sovereignty of the states. Even though a state has a right to sovereignty, thus is allowed to deal with its own affairs without foreign intervention, there are certain cases of large scale human rights violations, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing that might justify intervention. In these cases, the question is not only the sovereignty of the states but also whether the way of intervention is appropriate and whether it achieves the desired result without causing more harm. We can differentiate between two main types of interventions: humanitarian peacekeeping and military intervention. In our case, military intervention is the more relevant one, being the subject of real controversy.
Table of Contents
- Introduction - a theoretical debate.
- The debate concerning intervention.
- State collapse and ethnic cleansing.
- Western powers and the UN were concerned about the safety of their own forces.
- The genocide in Rwanda could have been stopped earlier with a legitimate intervention.
- The case in Darfur.
Latest in the category international relations From the same author
knowledge network