Humanitarian Intervention, Support and Objection
Abstract
The chief aim of this paper is evaluating the arguments that challenge the Humanitarian Intervention as an exception to the prohibition on the use of force. The Humanitarian Intervention still did not become an exception to the prohibition on the use of force, it can be traced back to the 19th and 20th centuries. The study examines the advantage of the Humanitarian Intervention in the first part. Comparative analyses were carried out between Tanzania used of force against Uganda and NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. The consequence of the precedents gives a great impact for the development of the regulations. In the second part, it shows that Humanitarian Intervention does not comply with international law. And the American’s intervention in Somalia provides support for Humanitarian Intervention fails to create lasting peace. And it will become a powerful tool for developed countries to intervene in the interests of developing countries. To sum up, there are so many controversial aspects of Humanitarian Intervention. It protects the human rights and ensure the region stability. However, it breaches the state sovereignty and disrupts the international orders. Many scholars do not recognize humanitarian intervention as an exception to the use of state use of force.
Related Papers
- → The Protection of Civilians and ethics of humanitarian governance: beyond intervention and resilience(2019)6 cited
- → Humanitarian Intervention after 9/11(2004)4 cited
- → Humanitarian Intervention: Preventing Or Prolonging Human Rights Violations(2017)
- 사례를 통하여 본 인도적 간섭: 국제법적 적법성(2004)
- → International Law and Humanitarian Intervention(2000)