Since its beginnings armed humanitarian intervention has represented a dilemma to war, peace and international ethics because it involves the moral issue of when to intervene and if these interventions are justifiable. Moreover there are the different theories in favour and against of armed intervention. This essay will discuss: Can armed humanitarian intervention ever be justified?
In order to make this essay clearer is to believe that a couple of definitions should be made beforehand; humanitarian intervention and armed intervention. Firstly, ‘humanitarian intervention is traditionally defined as the use of force by states to protect human rights. This definition presumes that states should do the intervening in order to maintain civil rights and of course the welfare and peace in society’.Nowadays, it is sometimes argued that this traditional definition is obsolete because humanitarian intervention is increasingly a matter of collective action under UN auspices, not action undertaken by states acting on their own authority and under their own law. Secondly, we speak of armed intervention when that exercise involves the use of military force. An armed intervention is humanitarian when its aim is to protect innocent people who are not nationals of the intervening state from violence perpetrated or permitted by the government of the target state. Additionally, armed intervention to stop a massacre is likely to be only the first of many measures needed to restore order to a chaotic society and prevent subsequent massacres. If prevention is important, then is to believe that the challenge for humanitarian policy is to move from responding to humanitarian crises to forestalling them.
Leave a comment | tags: arms, assistance, Balkans, believe, citizen, comminity, Daniel Losada, death, failure, fundamental, globalisation, government, Haiti, human rights, humanitarian, humankind, iam, international, International Relations, intervention, IR, just war, justification ethics, law, life, love, MIchael Walzer, moral, murder, nation, NATO, PAkistan, peace, peacekeeping, person, principle, problem, respect, right, Rwanda, Security Council, self preservation, Sierra Leone, struggle, Stuart Mills, success, sustem, target, theory, UK, UN, United Nations, universal, USA, Venezuela, violence, war, when to intervene | posted in Global news, International Relations
How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?
The ‘special relationship’ is a phrase used to describe close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The term was first used in 1946 in a speech made by Winston Churchill. In recent decades, it has been argued that the’ special relationship’ is about control and how to keep both interests aligned. Today, is to believe that to a very large extent Britain special relationship with the United States constrained its foreign policy. This essay will discuss: How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?
As a concept foreign policy aims to ensure the security of its people and territory, promotes its aims in the international arena, and encourage co-operation with other countries. The special relationship between Britain and United States is close and robust because British and American values are essentially the same, which explains why national interests are often aligned. ‘The US-UK relationship is strong because it delivers for both of us. The alliance is not sustained by our historical ties or blind loyalty. This is a partnership of choice that serves our national interests.’ Still, in many aspects for both parties foreign policy is dependant one on each other. At the moment, it is evident that there is a distinctive relationship between Britain and the United States, but it exists at the top and bottom with very little in between. At the top, the common language and a degree of shared relationship and culture between leaders has clearly provided Britain with some extra diplomatic leverage with US policy-makers. At the bottom, there is a degree of detailed co-operation and understanding between the armed services of the two countries and their intelligence organizations. However, Britain and the US perhaps understood one another much less well than they assumed, despite the link of a common language. Britain was a ‘little island’, the US a subcontinent; Britain believed in the committed to the welfare state and massive state intervention in the economy; the US, at least in theory, remained committed to private enterprise. ‘Anti-Americanism in Britain was matched by certain anti-British sentiments in the US, especially among the Irish.’
Leave a comment | tags: 1970, 1982, 1983, Andrew Marrs, benefit, Blair, bomb, Bosnia, Britain, Cameron, CIA, co-operation, commitment, Conservative, constitution, constrain, death, degree, diplomatic, economy, FBI, foreign policy, Gordon Brown, institution, intervention, Ireland, iron Lady, language, Major, NATO, Obama., organizations, Parliament, people, PM, president, relations, rights, Ronald Reagan, rules, special, special relationship, state, terrorism, Thatcher, Thatcherism, UK, United States, US, US state, visa, welfare, youtube | posted in British Politics