The Use Of Force In Humanitarian Intervention

Violence or the potential for violence is a fact of human existence. Many societies, including our own, reward martial success or skill at arms. The ways in which members of a particular society use force reveal a great deal about the nature of authority within the group and about its members' priorities. Martha Finnemore uses one type of force, military intervention, as a window onto the shifting character of international society. She examines the changes, over the past 400 years, in why countries intervene militarily as well as in the ways they have intervened. It is not the fact of intervention that has altered, she says, but rather the reasons for and meaning behind intervention—the conventional understanding of the purposes for which states can and should use force. Finnemore looks at three types of intervention: collecting debts, addressing humanitarian crises, and acting against states perceived as threats to international peace. In all three, she finds that what is now considered "obvious" was vigorously contested or even rejected by people in earlier periods for well-articulated and logical reasons. A broad historical perspective allows her to explicate long-term trends: the steady erosion of force's normative value in international politics, the growing influence of equality norms in many aspects of global political life, and the increasing importance of law in intervention practices.

When can a state give political support to a military intervention in another state? The Government of the Netherlands commissioned an Expert Group to examine this complex, topical and time-sensitive question and to consider whether it should press for international acceptance of humanitarian intervention as a new legal basis for the use of force between states in exceptional circumstances. This volume is the result of those efforts. The Expert Group was led by Professor Cyrille Fijjnaut and consisted of Mr. Kristian Fischer, Professor Terry Gill, Professor Larissa van den Herik, Professor Martti Koskenniemi, Professor Claus Kreß, Mr. Robert Serry, Ms. Monika Sie Dhian Ho, Ms. Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Professor Rob de Wijk. Their thorough analysis and recommendations offer important insights that can aid governments in formulating a position on political support for the use of force between states and humanitarian intervention. The volume also constitutes a useful tool for scholars and practitioners in considering these difficult and important issues.

Humanitarian intervention is a many layered and complex concept. While moral society has an obligation to stop deliberate and persistent serious human rights abuse, the direct use of force remains a contentious option alongside other strategies employed by the international community. This study analyzes the various ethical positions, particularly consequentialism, welfare-utilitarianism and just war theory to unravel this intricate topic. Uniquely, the book goes beyond previous philosophical or ethical treatments of the subject to provide a more rounded and practical reflection on the lessons learned from the revival of humanitarian intervention as a tool of conflict resolution.

Military intervention in a conflict without a reasonable prospect of success is unjustifiable, especially when it is done in the name of humanity. Couched in the debate on the responsibility to protect civilians from violence and drawing on traditional 'just war' principles, the centralpremise of this book is that humanitarian military intervention can be justified as a policy option only if decision makers can be reasonably sure that intervention will do more good than harm. This book asks, 'Have past humanitarian military interventions been successful?' It defines success as saving lives and sets out a methodology for estimating the number of lives saved by a particular military intervention. Analysis of 17 military operations in six conflict areas that were thedefining cases of the 1990s-northern Iraq after the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor-shows that the majority were successful by this measure. In every conflict studied, however, some military interventions succeeded while others failed, raising the question, 'Why have some past interventions been more successful than others?' This book argues that the central factors determining whether a humanitarian intervention succeeds are theobjectives of the intervention and the military strategy employed by the intervening states. Four types of humanitarian military intervention are offered: helping to deliver emergency aid, protecting aid operations, saving the victims of violence and defeating the perpetrators of violence. Thefocus on strategy within these four types allows an exploration of the political and military dimensions of humanitarian intervention and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four types.Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic humanrights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

During the 1990s, humanitarian intervention seemed to promise a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would be privileged over national interests or imperial ambitions. Orford provides critical readings of the narratives that accompanied such interventions and shaped legal justifications for the use of force by the international community. Through a close reading of legal texts and institutional practice, she argues that a far more circumscribed, exploitative and conservative interpretation of the ends of intervention was adopted during this period. The book draws on a wide range of sources, including critical legal theory, feminist and postcolonial theory, psychoanalytic theory and critical geography, to develop ways of reading directed at thinking through the cultural and economic effects of militarized humanitarianism. The book concludes by asking what, if anything, has been lost in the move from the era of humanitarian intervention to an international relations dominated by wars on terror.

Violence or the potential for violence is a fact of human existence. Many societies, including our own, reward martial success or skill at arms. The ways in which members of a particular society use force reveal a great deal about the nature of authority within the group and about its members' priorities. In The Purpose of Intervention, Martha Finnemore uses one type of force, military intervention, as a window onto the shifting character of international society. She examines the changes, over the past 400 years, about why countries intervene militarily, as well as in the ways they have intervened. It is not the fact of intervention that has altered, she says, but rather the reasons for and meaning behind intervention-the conventional understanding of the purposes for which states can and should use force. Finnemore looks at three types of intervention: collecting debts, addressing humanitarian crises, and acting against states perceived as threats to international peace. In all three, she finds that what is now considered "obvious" was vigorously contested or even rejected by people in earlier periods for well-articulated and logical reasons. A broad historical perspective allows her to explicate long-term trends: the steady erosion of force's normative value in international politics, the growing influence of equality norms in many aspects of global political life, and the increasing importance of law in intervention practices.

Over the centuries, societies have gradually developed constraints on the use of armed force in the conduct of foreign relations. The crowning achievement of these efforts occurred in the midtwentieth century with the general acceptance among the states of the world that the use of military force for territorial expansion was unacceptable. A central challenge for the twenty-first century rests in reconciling these constraints with the increasing desire to protect innocent persons from human rights deprivations that often take place during civil war or result from persecution by autocratic governments. Humanitarian Intervention is a detailed look at the historical development of constraints on the use of force and at incidents of humanitarian intervention prior to, during, and after the Cold War.