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and of course the welfare and peace in society’.Nowadays, it is sometimes argued that this traditional definition is obsolete because humanitarian intervention is increasingly a matter of collective action under UN auspices, not action undertaken by states acting on their own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
Compare the powers of the American President and British Prime Minister. Which can provide more effective leadership?
After comparing British Prime Minister and American President roles is believed that the U.S president leadership can provide more effectiveness, the reason are the following:
The president of the US is the head of the State, while the British prime minister is the effective head of British government. In this case is believed that the US president as head of the state is able to make decisions without consulting the executive.
The Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution determines that the president is the sole commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces and of the state militias when they are called into national duty. In other words, the president is given the power to require responses from the principal officers in each constituent department of the executive. As commander-in chief the president leads an armed force of almost 1.5 million. There are also many civilian personnel involved, and the Department of Defense is the largest executive department.
Leave a comment | tags: alliance, Blair, Bosnia, Brown, Bush, Cameron, Churchill, citizen, Clinton, degree, democratic, effective, equallity, EU, external, fault, foreign, leadership, Major, national interest, NATO, Obama., partnership, peace, peacekeeping, people, policy, policy making, pound, Reagan, relation, right, states, term, territory, Thatcher, UK, UN, understanding, US, war, weaponry, William Hague | posted in British Politics