After the Second World War in 1945, the notion of crime against humanity' emerged to condemn the killing of the Jews by the Nazis. In reaction to this shock, several countries stood in favour of conveying a new way of thinking about international relations, and tried to set up a new kind of intervention. This concept is commonly called humanitarian intervention, and is associated with the normative theory. If an intervention has been traditionally defined as a breach in the sovereignty a state which interferes in this state's internal affairs , the humanitarian intervention claims to reach a different goal. It aims at preventing any potential mass killing and genocide in the future, at helping people and at guaranteeing the respect of the Human Rights. However, there is actually no exact definition, as it remains a controversial theme. There are various types of humanitarian interventions, which can be classified such as the forcible ones, the non-forcible ones, the long-term ones or the short-terms ones.
[...] The liberalist theory also argues that the humanitarian intervention is not driven by the interests of the states. According to Chris Brown, if a state does not intervene in another one because it does not see any point in doing so, then it is unacceptable. For the liberalist thinkers, the interdependence of the states and the mutual interventions could achieve peace. That is why, for example, the US intervention in Kosovo has been justified as a necessary mean to promote democracy and to prevent the Serb leader Milosevic from violating the Human Rights Convention. [...]
[...] Here, the debate is about whether the states which intervene are doing so to promote a new set of norms based on ethic and moral conceptions, or to fulfil their national interests. So, I will first focus on the humanitarian concept, and on why states are apparently willing to act even if they have no interest to do so. Next, I will explain why states have actually always an interest to intervene. Finally, I will study other perspectives of the normative theory and of the humanitarian intervention concepts. [...]
[...] Likewise, they are more and more often the targets of terrorist groups or other secret organizations, like it happened in Iraq recently: it is not a coincidence. First, the NGOs embody the political and the economical dominance of the West over the third world, since NGOs are mainly western organizations. Secondly, they formed a credible interface between the state they come from and the people they help. That is why they became a stake and are now a great player in the international order. As a conclusion, we saw that the humanitarian intervention concept, very complex, rests mostly on personal interpretations. [...]
[...] The fact is that here, as Allan little explained, European countries considered it as natural to see Balkan countries fighting each other for independence, then they thought there was no need to be opposed to such a situation since it has always been like that. Consequently they did not have any direct interest to intervene in the first place. Moreover, they did not want the US to intervene, because they were opposed to a military action. So when they eventually intervened pacifically four years after, in 1992, they only fed the population and they were unable to stop the conflict with peace agreements. [...]
[...] Besides, the case of Rwanda is seen as a great failure in the humanitarian intervention process, because nobody was able to stop the genocide which took place in 1994. Moreover, according to Parekh, the states have no moral duty to intervene, because as for him, ‘citizens are the exclusive responsibility of their state, and their state is entirely their own businesses. Therefore, it is the political leaders' role to control what is happening in their country, and not the one of foreign countries. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee