I will consider the position of Just War theory and how it interacts with humanitarian intervention. The primary focus will be of armed humanitarian intervention rather than what is defined as humanitarian aid. Humanitarian intervention ought to always be considered as a violation of the sovereign state. But in some cases it can be justified. I will discuss the situations of one or more countries invading a sovereign nation in the name of humanitarian intervention. I will review some of the issues that a Just War Theorist will bring up in opposition of humanitarian aid as well as reasons for it.
There is a line to be drawn between armed humanitarian intervention and humanitarian aid. Humanitarian intervention can be thought of specifically as a forceful behavior carried out by an international community in a particular state without that states approval or cooperation. Usually because there is some organized human rights violations being done by, incited by or tolerated by that particular state. The primary measure for this case is that the international community is intervening without the consent of the country violating the human rights.
Humanitarian aid is a different situation in which the state at hand is unable to provide adequate resources for its population to survive. The range of these criteria could be failure to provide food or safety but with the stipulation that the state is not intentionally violating the human rights of its people and gives consent to foreign aid.
At the root of the issue of humanitarian intervention is the presence of fundamental human rights. If there are a set of human rights that ought to be granted to any and all human beings and it ought to also be the duty of every human to maintain and protect those rights. Human rights are not something given by a sovereign government but something taken by sovereign people. There has been some disagreement over this notion of it being a right or a responsibility. Now, the common way to talk about this type of intervention is as a responsibility. This way of thinking is commonly dubbed “responsibility to protect” by the U.N.
The U.N. released a report in 2004 that outlined five criteria that the Security Council uses to authorize armed military intervention to protect human rights. Those five being seriousness of threat, proper purpose, last resort, proportional means and balance of consequences. Humanitarian intervention when performed within these standards is a perfectly acceptable reason for invading a sovereign nation.
Seriousness of threat is a vital decision maker for cases of humanitarian intervention. If the Security Council sent troops to all corners of the globe for less than serious reasons the cost of such deployment would eventually lead to dismantlement of both the Security Council and pretty much any form of global government due to depletion of financial sources. Proper purpose is another criterion that pertains to the violation of rights. Humanitarian intervention is the armed intrusion to protect the fundamental rights of humans. Proper purpose refers to the kinds of violations that the U.N. has the right and responsibility to interfere with. Paid holiday leave is not a right secured simply by being a human being, but the right to not be killed for political or religious views is.
Another deciding factor of the justification of humanitarian intervention is that of last resort. The use of forceful action against a sovereign nation is something that we have agreed to use on as a means of last resort. It is the decision of the U.N. Security Council to decide if armed intervention is the only possible way to put and end to the violation of human rights.
The final aspects taken into account for deciding the proper method of intervention are proportional means and balance of consequences. The means of force used to end the violations of rights ought to be only as much as is necessary to end the violations. The punishment ought to fit the crime. For example it would be wrong for an armed military to go in and dismantle the entire government of a sovereign country for the human rights violations of a small sector of that country, or for the international community to respond lethally to non-lethal violations.
The resources at the disposal of the Security Council must be used responsibly and these guidelines make that more possible. The more the U.N. uses its resources properly the more likely sovereign countries will commit troops and other supplies to be used at their discretion.
There come several problems with the cases of humanitarian intervention. If we are to allow a justifiable motive for war, there needs to be several limitations on it. The title of humanitarian intervention cannot be an all-encompassing free pass for a strong country to threaten the sovereignty of a weak country. There are many Just War theorists that contend that humanitarian intervention is a rightful norm in cases where states have the inability to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. But they would all agree that the term humanitarian intervention is not something to be thrown around willy nilly.
