Essay Sample on The 'Triumph of Human Rights': International Intervention Justified?

Introduction

The advocates of human rights have valid reasons for international human rights triumph. That is since the mobilization of international organizations in the past half a decade coupled with systems of government lobbied in the protection of individuals and groups whose rights have been subjugated (Denike, 2008). That raises the question, is international intervention ever justified as a human rights norm or as a justification for Western Imperialism? Humanitarian intervention is viewed in the realm of different response done in the quest for the pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. The intervention is a justified welfare promotion, human rights, and reduction of the sufferings of the civilians in regions where human rights have been violated. Human rights intervention is therefore justified as an appropriation of laws of humanity coupled with security state policy through the protection of terror and tyranny through varied discourses of human rights rather than entrenching the Western States' imperialism of their sovereignty.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Discussion

The post-cold war era saw an increase in humanitarian intervention owing to the onset of the liberal peace that informed the foundation of a common belief of international norms and attitudes. The response was more prevalent in countries that trampled on the rights of humans. That was in the quests of making the world more peaceful through their connection to the orders of the liberals (Pattison, 2007). Human rights intervention is vital and justified, albeit the Western Imperialism sometimes responds recklessly or inadequately, thus making the situation worse. Violations of human rights in countries like Syria, Yemen, and Myanmar prompt the international community to have a moral predicament of reacting to protect the citizens of the states. Albeit the said states may be sovereign, they are not mandated to justify the sufferings and killings of civilians. The United Nations (UN) underscored the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in their 2005 world summit in their attempts to resolve the conflict between the human rights of an individual and sovereignty. That justifies the intervention of the international community in the case where a country fails to fulfill its obligation of protecting its citizens (Ningelen,2018). However, there have been problems of the international community remaining selective, thus making R2P to be viewed as problematic with varied consequences (Crossley, 2018). The liberal and democratic backgrounds have, however, supported the R2P intervention citing that it is done to protect the human rights and maintenance of peace.

Realist's Perspectives on Human Rights Intervention

The realists have a firm belief of humanitarian rights intervention being Western act imperialism done for self-interest. They argue that sovereignty juxtaposes nothing but organized hypocrisy and that the norm of independence is often breached (Hofmann & Wisotziki, 2013).In multilateral negotiation, realists assert a clash among states in terms of their positions as some insist on strengthening of human rights as some are in the notion of continued sovereign norm values. The realists underscore humanitarian intervention as the use of military force in addressing people's extraordinary sufferings like more substantial scale violations or genocides that are against human rights, primarily when caused by the actions of the government or its failure to act.

The armed humanitarian interventions aimed at protecting, defending, and protecting citizens from gross abuse purported b their government are always conducted without the consent of the offending nation. The realists critique the interventions to be raising more complex issues related to international law, ethics, political philosophy, and international relations (Rahamanovic, 2017). The realists justify the human rights intervention as a justification for Western imperialism through the just war theory hence its inappropriateness.

Additionally, realist views humanitarian intervention as coercion of smaller states by Western Imperialism whose motives may not be based on morality acts but the judgment of the actors. It is no wonder it is based on the self-interest of Western imperialisms who have both military and economic powers against affected developing states. Additionally, the militarizing cannot be considered as a humanitarian act. Worse still, the transgression of state sovereignty by outsiders who use force in addressing the sufferings of a said State's citizens should not be justified (Udin, 2018). Similarly, as purported by the realists, the threshold conditions for interventions may raise a vast number of issues like some suffering conditions may be inherently vague, and some challenges may be conceptual and epistemic.An instance was Darfur, where the Sudanese government claimed that they were conducting a counter-insurgency campaign, and the war in Bosnia was part of a succession or partition. At the same time, the Rwandese genocide was informed by the civil war effects that led to power struggles in the country (Paris, 2014). The threshold conditions for intervention may, therefore, be dependent on the domestic contexts in which the people and the government find themselves.

Moreover, the realist theories assert that war should not be warranted in the name of saving lives as it may justify Western Imperialism who asserts their political, military, and economic dominance over weaker and developing states (Nengelgen, 2018). That argues that there is an ambiguous quality in the use of deadly force in the quest to prevent and ending violence against others; hence the just war theory may be a hoax. Similarly, the realists underscore humankind's shock of consciousness and the moral reticence on the use of deadly force to save lives, and whether through direct utilitarianism theory, or the natural law principles, armed intervention mechanisms are still questionable (Paris, 2014). For instance, who is mandated to intervene? Or would the military intervention succeed? Or is the military intervention worth the cost of balance? (Pingeot &Obenland, 2014) Failure to address these questions nullifies armed interferences, and the realists propose that there should be non-military measures to address the sufferings of humans. That is since the armed forces may be reluctant to conduct themselves in protecting, defending, and rescue missions of civilians or strangers from their governments.

Additionally, the realists assert that there are implications of justifying humanitarian interventions like the inequality of military capabilities among states that may affect the success of the interveners (Moses, Bahador &Wright, 2011). That would make the weaker and underdeveloped countries vulnerable to interveners. At the same time, the Western imperialism states or the developed states may violate human rights with impunity as they are more potent in terms of military, power, and economically. That would further result in an unequal distribution of rights and responsibility in terms of humanitarian grounds and military interventions; hence more obligations are granted to western imperialism who use their powers to dominate humanitarian interventions over developing states. Therefore, the former act on their self-interests (Paris,2014). They may, for instance, use their dominating powers of military intervention as an act of defense to their allies against an enemy country by the use of deadly force on others.

Moreover, from a realist perspective, humanitarian intervention is an inviolability of a state's sovereign rights as states are forbidden from using armed forces against another state's territorial integrity exception is for self-defense hence non-permissibility of intervention as it is a justification of Western imperialism. Such powerful western countries act unilaterally as their humanitarian interventions are influenced by their political and legal implications, coupled with moral dilemmas (Miller, 2000). The realists conclude by saying that when states send their military forces into the territories of other nations, it is rarely or never for humanitarian purposes. Instead, it is preferably in the pursuance of their national interests like gaining of geostrategic advantage, territorial grabbing, or seizure of control of valuable natural resources. The moral purposes have continually infected the higher powers' political discourse thereby making humanitarian intervention as the latest obfuscation in politics like the 2003 UK-US invasion and occupation of Iraq that Tony Blair the UK prime minister considered as humanitarian intervention (Welsh, 2002)

Liberal's Perceptive on Human Rights Interventions

The liberals, on the other hand, view human rights intervention as an international norm aimed at maintenance of peace in the international community by punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the innocent. They assert that humanitarian interventions are justified since they uphold the law and protect the rights by acting as checks and balances to the leaders who enforce specific rules that jeopardize the rights of citizens or cause the sufferings and deaths of citizens. They believe that it is the moral obligation for people to help each other since human rights are universal moral rights. In cases of oppressions that go on in any part of the world, other states are mandated to act on behalf of the human community (Linter, 2005). Liberals assert the notion of beneficence which connotes the principle of respect and support for one another in ways that are appropriate in cases of transgressions that require interventions or trials where mass-scale injustices are going on elsewhere, instead of sitting idle.

The liberalists in their quests of justification of human rights intervention as an international norm rather than a rationale for western imperialism assert the principle of sovereign responsibility. That underscores an existing bond between the government and the governed, coupled with external intervention possibilities in assisting the oppressed and those with long-standing prevalence. (Linter, 2005)That is made clear through the signing of the UN's international charter, which enhances the member states benefiting from only sovereignty privileges but also accepting responsibilities of external interventions.

Additionally, the liberalists assert that the human rights intervention in the form of just war in the quest to save strangers may lead to long-lasting peace (Welsh, 2002). That can be achieved through the vigorous crossing of borders to prevent the massive abuse of the State. That is made through the right side as ordained in the UN charter that further ensures more permissive regimes based on the customary laws to keep up with the changing norms of the given State's practices (Badescu, 2007). It is therefore essential that states have agreed on their universal responsibility of undertaking humanitarian intervention in protecting the citizens that may be vulnerable to egregious human rights violations. That is typically done after assessment of the intervener's legal status to prevent it from acting from her selfish interest hence the importance of the moral status of the stakeholder. Additionally, the intervener should always seek first the authorization of the UN Security Council to ensure her legality in the aggravated State.

Similarly, there are always limits on the prohibition of force in cases where the target state agrees to intervene expressly and when the African Union undertakes the intervention. That is since chapter 4(h) of the African Union allows it to occur in circumstances of worse scenarios like genocide, crimes of wa...