International Politics

Question: Write an essay about the International Politics. Answer: There are various questions that are raised for intervention in conflicts that are foreign (i) whether the same should be only on grounds that are humanitarian or even when there is at stake some national interest; and (ii) what is the effectiveness of the interventions that are primarily or solely carried out on grounds that are humanitarian. There has been an establishment by the contemporary international law beyond any doubt and violations that are serious with respect to human rights become a concern international. For the international community, inaction is not an option that is viable when there is a community or group which is being persecuted systematically in some part of the world or the international community. It is also commendable in this context that international actors both states and organizations have started to focus their attention towards something that is not limited to only intervention but is a more comprehensive approach to a state building post-war. The emergence norms of intervention shall be reinforced by this (ARBOUR, 2008). The ethical and moral arguments provide a wide scope for taking of action. Sovereignty in itself is no longer the shield that the perpetrator shall have for escaping the punitive measures. Through time, there have been variously debated with respect to humanitarian intervention at international level and in the face of ethnic cleansing that had been carried out in the early nineties in Yugoslavia and then recently in Sudan these debates and discussion have gained momentum (Argument and change in world politics: ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention, 2003). Unarmed and armed participation are entailed by these interventions of a state or more than one state, the international organization often aid such interventions, on another state to ensure that there is well-being in its domestic group which cannot be any longer protected by its own government. The arguments that this essay mainly focuses on are (a) is the sovereignty of a state absolute, and (b) are the intervention that is purely humanitarian in nature the intervention decision is made independent of the self-interest of the intervenee. An argument that arises from the concept of Humanitarian Intervention is whether the sovereignty of the state is absolute. The sovereignty of the state is not absolute. The international community cannot intervene in the legal jurisdiction of another state's domestic affairs theoretically as per the UN Charter. In the principle articles with respect to intervention and using of force are found in the article 2(4) and Article 51(Bellamy, 2005). However the states can intervene on humanitarian grounds; however most of this intervention of the state, as argued in the essay, is based on the self-interest of the states that are intervening. Thus, the sovereignty of the state cannot be absolute, the responsibility principally of allows the intervention into states that are unable and unwilling to protect a group of citizens or all of their citizens. It may be, on a moral ground that is higher that intervention may seem to be justifiable. However, they are not effective (Chung, n.d.). The state's finite resources and imposition on them by their constituencies domestically would allow the deployment of resources fully that are needed when there is at stake the state's self-interest as well. Thus, it is not coincidental or surprising that the interventions most of them are based on self-interest and not primarily or exclusively on grounds that are humanitarian. It is on one hand claimed by the scholars that there is a duty on the international community to intervene in those conflicts where the citizens are helpless. The political realists, on the other hand, claim that if the nation's self-interest is not at stake, then there will be a lack of the incentive that the country may have for investing in the necessary amount of resources for the intervention to be successful and therefore it is like that the intervention will be a fail ure. It is on normative claims that the advocates of human rights base their arguments on with respect to when the intervention should be done, whereas the focus of the realist is strategy aspects relating to the intervention and the feasibility that it has in a world that is anarchic and in which there is no authority which is overarching (Ciurea, 2015). I agree with the opinion of the realist and argue that the decision of interventions that are based on the grounds that are solely humanitarian have a greater chance of failure. There are two main reasons for it (i) Finite Resources, the government resources are finite, and there are more needs that are required to be satisfied then the resources that are available to satisfy them (Criddle, 2015). Thus, the Government has to decide whether the resources should be utilized abroad or domestically. Those resources would be utilized more towards domestic need as compared to the cause of intervention based on humanitarian grounds with no personal stake; (ii) Governments Survival even it regimes that are authoritarian the support of the citizen is important for the survival. If there is the failure of the intervention, the rules will be blamed by its constituents. Therefore, the preference of the rulers would be to intervene in cases that are easier, that is those cases in which they are s ure that they will succeed. However, usually these are not the cases where humanitarian intervention is the maximum, the empirical evidence that exists support the view of the realist. It indicates that interventions that are based solely on grounds of good intention are more likely to fail. In Somalia, the intervention of US in the year 1993 is a critical case that supports this claim. In this case, there was a huge pressure on the government of US to provide to the Somalis who were suffering political oppression and starvation humanitarian aid. There, however, was no economic or strategic interest that the US had towards Somalia. It, therefore, intervened in its capacity that was minimal. It the street of Mogadishu there was outnumbering of the American soldiers, and they were killed, and they failed to capture the war-lords Somali. On the other hand the intervention of US in Kosovo precisely succeeded because there was considerable importance strategically that was attached to th e region and therefor there was a willingness in the government of America to invest resources for ending the conflict that was there between the Albanians and the Serbs so as to ensure that was peace that was sustainable (Ethics, Law, and Humanitarian Intervention:, 2014). However every intervention cannot be justified by human rights, it is dependent on the nature, magnitude and scope of the issue. There clearly has to be circumstances which are extreme, and there is liberty and life which is at stake if force across the international boundary is required. There are various situations of violence which are required to be dealt itself locally by the government or the local stakeholder. It is only when there are certain cases like ethnic cleansing, genocide or massacring systematically national or religious community and when oppression and extreme brutality is targeted towards a large number of the population of a state, it is only then can a response and intervention from international borders be justified. What needs to be established that it is not practical or possible to wait for a response from the local government that is there (Hill, 2009). It also has to be established that due to limited resources of each government it is not feasible that at every occasion intervention would be possible. In each one, it is necessary to calculate the risk. It is necessary to weigh the consequences that could possibly be there due to such intervention. If there is the further spread of conflict or insecurity that is caused due to the intervention, it is necessary that intervention should be stalled and should be occasioned at a moment that is more opportune. There is always a risk that is imposed by the military intervention across international for the forces that are intervening (Jayakumar, n.d.). Interventions are important from the moral standpoint for the oppressed populations benefit. However as already argued in this essay there is no pure moral which is in existence in the life of politics, and it is not necessary to pretend that there is any kind of purity that is there in this in most of the cases (Jean Buck, 2012). As far as an intervention is right, a moral agency can be there for any actor to act on the populations behalf. It is argued by moralist that the state that should be allowed to intervene should be the state that has respect towards human rights. In the legal and political realm, however, it is general the interventions that are multilateral in nature which enjoys the legitimacy. In this essay, I would also like to argue that both politico-legal factors as well should aid in the determination of justifying who is to intervene. Unilateral action may be pre-empted by decisions that are collective. The UN in this context has the most appropriate place for leading the intervention process. In Iraq, the intervention from the US and the military response of NATO are Kosovo brought forth cries of doubt, and there was a general generation of suspicion among various other states too. It is because of the fact that there is the motive that ever state may be acting unilaterally is why unilateralism has been questioned time and again. The General Assembly of UN has evidence in ample with respect to the commitment to addressing and upholding the issues that are pressing and that may require intervention to be enforced (Lechner, 2010). UN has been entrusted by states and agents are authorized to further by UN for carrying out measures that are appropriate. The issue arises at the time when the UN is unable to come to a consensus with respect to such decisions. Meanwhile, there are atrocities which are being still carried on. In such a scenario it is important the prominence is given to force that is transnational, and an active role is to be given to them for getting out of this situation of paralysis. In extreme cases, there is a partial consensus which is there among the states that are liberal that there exists a moral right of intervention is cases which are extreme in nature. It is, however, necessary that the states that are involved in the process of decision should not be acting in a manner that is for their own interest. It is argued by so moralist that obligations and rights for intervention are restored instantly if the measures of collective fail. It is however with the caution that such situation is required to be treated. There would be certain exceptions to it which can be made, if it were certain that the country which was intervening was in a position of being able to carry out the intervention in the manner that is the effect, and there is no ulterior motive which is there behind. There however still at all times mixed with this intervention an ulterior motive for the party which is intervening whether it is only one actor which is involved or whether it is multiple actors there is not compulsion or obligation on the state to intervene at a cost that is grave to itself. Thus, since the resources are very finite thus a state would only apply t his limited resources it has to intervention there needs necessarily to be a benefit that the state has for itself (Miller, 1995). The Bangladesh case is another case in point in the year 1971. Bangladesh was known formerly as East Pakistan. Had there been a General Assembly for the Council of the UNs security then it is likely that such an intervention would have been decided against due to their being a an opposition from China and USA are great powers. The decision that India took of intervening in Bangladesh was dependent solely on it own political decision. However, it aided in providing an effecting stopping to the atrocities that were occurring in Bangladesh and helping push Bangladesh and it freedom fighters towards the victory of the Pakistani Army's over occupying (Lechner, 2010). However, it needs to be clarified that intervention dos do not refer only to the use of force. Though in most cases of humanitarian intervention use of force is involved, and this is extremely important for its success that pursuance of the same should be in a manner that is forceful. The aim that overarches is that the oppressor should be defeated, who are carrying out heinous acts of oppressions such as ethnic cleansing or genocide etc. there may also be the attempt towards the method that are non-coercive during the start of the intervention through efforts that are diplomatic. Sanctions have also proved to be a useful method for pressurizing the states that are rough. Nevertheless, the military which is coercive is justified when there is the failure from all other types measures. In the case of Bosnia this was exemplified, where there had been repeated efforts which were failing for dealing with the situation without declaring a war against the perpetrators. There was humanitari an relief that was brought for the victims and there was some level of protection from the workers that was provided for the relief workers protection but there was no success that was achieved for creating in Bosnia a zone that was safe. The concern that remains is that the principle of non-intervention's relaxation would case more number of actions of military by the state. Though there is some validity to these concerns however, there is no direction provided by them for finding a solution for it. There is an emergence of an international community which will be able to override the risks that interventions which are unilateral have. There has been a success in the cosmopolitan actors in impacting the agenda setting for the affairs that are international. As was stated by Kofi Anan the former UN General Secretary that there is a need for the protection of human rights are not for the protection of those who are abusing it (Philpott, 2003). Further, it can be stated that a strong argument can be made that human interventions that are based solely on purposes that are humanitarian have chances of failing. Intervention are extremely costly unless there is some kind of self-interest which drives it otherwise it is only half-heartedly that they are carried out in some cases the use of resources for intervention that is cross-border becomes counter-productive for the state. This Kosovo and Somalia intervention corroborate this. The argument that has been developed in this essay is the realist in nature. It is in the political and legal sphere that the mechanics and procedure of intervention lie. The granting of licensing key role should ideally be with the UN. It is necessary to be able to aid those who are vulnerable that a clear consensus is reached by the actors at the international level. Reference ARBOUR, L. (2008). The responsibility to protect as a duty of care in international law and practice. Review of International Studies, 34(03). Argument and change in world politics: ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention. (2003). Choice Reviews Online, 40(11), pp.40-6679-40-6679. Bellamy, A. (2005). Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq. Ethics International Affairs, 19(02), pp.31-54. Chung, A. (n.d.). Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention: A Liberal Defence. SSRN Electronic Journal. Ciurea, A. (2015). Humanitarian business/Humanitarian intervention: ideas in action. Resilience, 3(1), pp.87-92. Criddle, E. (2015). Three Grotian Theories of Humanitarian Intervention. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 16(2). Ethics, Law, and Humanitarian Intervention:. (2014). Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 97(2), pp.228-238. Hill, T. (2009). KANT AND HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION1. Philosophical Perspectives, 23(1), pp.221-240. Jayakumar, K. (n.d.). Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. Jean Buck, H. (2012). Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or Humanitarian Intervention?. Development and Change, 43(1), pp.253-270. Lechner, S. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention: Moralism versus Realism?. International Studies Review, 12(3), pp.437-443. Lewy, G. (1993). The case for humanitarian intervention. Orbis, 37(4), pp.621-632. Miller, T. (1995). Shifting boundaries. Women's Studies International Forum, 18(3), pp.299-309. Nardin, T. and Williams, M. (2006). Humanitarian intervention. New York: New York University Press. Nzelibe, J. (n.d.). Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects of Humanitarian Intervention. SSRN Electronic Journal. Philpott, D. (2003). Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention, Neta C. Crawford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 466 pp., $85 cloth, $30 paper. Ethics International Affairs, 17(01), pp.178-181. Rajan, M. (2000). "The New Interventionism"?. International Studies, 37(1), pp.31-40. Roberts, A. (2000). The So-called Right of Humanitarian Intervention. YHL, 3, p.3. Roberts, A. (2000). The So-called Right of Humanitarian Intervention. YHL, 3, p.3.