A major part of international law studies includes the development of human rights laws. Human rights laws have developed over the past century stemming from the horrible genocide that occurred in World War II. Post World War II and even more so after the end of the cold war there have been more and more so called “humanitarian interventions”. I read a book in my International Law class recently called Humanitarian Intervention by Thomas Weiss and found many parallels with our discussion in International Human Rights. In this blog post, I hope to explain the idea of humanitarian interventions, the main point of Weiss’ book: Responsibility to Protect and how this applies to our class discussion in international human rights.
First, it is important to explain what exactly is meant by the word humanitarian intervention. Weiss defines it as “coercive action by one for more states involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its authorities and with the purpose of preventing widespread suffering or death among the inhabitants. (5)” The most important part to notice about this definition would be the italicized part that says without the consent of the state that is being invaded. This goes against the idea of national sovereignty that many states hid behind when they refuse to intervene on humanitarian behalf.
It is also important to note that humanitarian interventions are widely unpopular throughout the world. Many states do not engage in such military missions and prefer to work with the UN peacekeeping troops instead. Weiss believes that this is a result of state self-interest. Citizens of a state do not like to see their troops killed in conflict where the state is getting nothing in return. An example of this would be the 1994 removal of US troops from Somalia after the death of 19 US troops. President Bill Clinton was under enormous pressures to remove the troops from this “barbaric” land because there was nothing to gain from them being there in the minds of the citizens. Those who have studied human rights understand the importance of protecting a failed/failing state. However, normal citizens do not understand that putting a democratic government in place would prevent the backlash we are facing now from Somalia.
The main argument from Weiss’ book is called Responsibility to Protect or R2P for short. The idea of R2P is that a sovereign nation has the responsibility to protect its citizens from internal conflict, threats against humanity, etc. If a sovereign state cannot protect its citizens the international community has the responsibility to intervene and protect the citizens of the world. Another important part of R2P is “that the essential element of R2P is the international responsibility to act with or without the approval of the host country. (Weiss 56)” I believe that R2P was fall under a Universalist’s point of view concerning human rights because Weiss argues that R2P covers all peoples.
I think that the idea of R2P is fantastic. As a person who believes that there should be some sort of guideline for basic human rights, I think R2P is a good way to ensure those rights. With R2P however, there needs to be rules of when it can be used and when it cannot be used. Weiss gives an example of when R2P was misused. “Is humanitarian intervention a convenient slight of hand to conceal hidden- and in the case of Iraq, not so hidden- Western agendas? (128)” President George W Bush first indicated that he planned on invading Iraq to protect the United States in pre-emptive self defense. When UN taskforces determined there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush administration fell back on R2P for the Iraqi people. While I do agree that R2P can be misused, that is why there should be certain criteria that have to be met before one can use R2P as a basis for use of force.
For me, I believe that the idea of R2P fits into our class discussions very nicely. Throughout our class discussions, I felt that there needs to be some sort of universal standards everyone is entitled to simply because they are human. As someone who is not a theorist, I can say while it is interesting to think about where our human rights came from, I am more interested in how we protect them in our current world climate. I do believe that there are certain instances in which military intervention is necessary to save those who can not save themselves. It is foolish to think that we can intervene in every situation; however, the R2P principle lays good groundwork for that idea. R2P to me means that every state around the world should be responsible for the well being and basic maintenance of it’s citizens. If they cannot meet those standards, we as citizens of the world have a responsibility to protect those in need.
Overall, Weiss’ book is a very interesting one. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the legal ramifications of undertaking humanitarian interventions. This blog post just scratches the surface of what Weiss has to offer in his book regarding human rights. It is a fast read and one necessary for those who question the use of force in humanitarian situations.
My question for the class would be: Do you think the Responsibility to Protect principle is a valid one? Does it matter at this point in time where human rights come from or should we simply fight abuses as they happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment