In any discussion about using military force as part of an attempt at humanitarian intervention in order to prevent genocide and human rights abuses, there are a series of issues to be examined. First, there is the question of legitimacy. Is there a clear mandate from the UN Security Council? If there is not, should countries act without it if there is widespread support in the UN General Assembly? Then there is the question of effectiveness. Do such missions usually achieve their basic goal of bringing peace and stability and ending the violence, or do they lead to more violence? Is the mission welcomed by the local people involved? (Compare for example: Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya) Moreover, would the funds used for the mission be better spent elsewhere as direct aid on a more concrete problem? (e.g. on providing food, water, medicine and shelter to an area not requiring a military presence). There is another important consideration that is often raised. Many experts argue that since the foundation of the UN humanitarian intervention has always been 'politicized'. What exactly the international community should do in response to the situation in Syria, for example, cannot be debated 'neutrally', simply as a humanitarian crisis. Each member state of the UNSC and the UNGA will inevitably bring to the discussion its own economic and strategic interests, and its own cultural or ideological perspective. In international relations this is the normal context in which a diplomatic discussion of a question like that of Syria takes place.
In order to
respond to a question like:
What are the main factors to be weighed when the international community is considering military intervention in response to a humanitarian crisis?
you will probably need to look at these sources and
think about the points raised (concerning the idea that for the international
community there is a responsibility to protect civilians from massive human
rights abuses by their own government which may override the principle of state
sovereignty) in relation to past and present humanitarian crises and
intervention or non-intervention by the international community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
You should also look at an
article in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014, by Erica Cheneweth and Maria J.
Stephan called: Drop Your weapons
This argues
against armed resistance and for civil resistance on a statistical basis,
claiming that the latter is more likely to produce positive change. It is then
argued that this means there is a greater responsibility for the international
community to ‘assist’ (civil protest and civil resistance against a
dictatorship) rather than to embrace the responsibility to protect principle.
For a wider discussion of
this and related issues, see:
