Member-only story

The Lessons of Armed Humanitarian Intervention

Grayson Bell

·9.8k Followers· Follow

Published in Learning From Somalia: The Lessons Of Armed Humanitarian Intervention

5 min read

1k View Claps

64 Respond

Save

Listen

Armed humanitarian intervention, the use of military force to alleviate human suffering in another state, has become a contentious issue in international relations. Supporters argue that it is sometimes necessary to prevent or stop atrocities, while critics contend that it often does more harm than good. In this article, we will examine the history, ethical implications, and effectiveness of armed humanitarian intervention. We will also draw lessons from past interventions to help us better understand the potential benefits and risks of this complex and controversial practice.

The concept of armed humanitarian intervention has its roots in the 19th century, when European powers intervened in the Ottoman Empire to protect Christian minorities. In the 20th century, the United Nations Charter enshrined the principle of non-intervention, but this was later challenged by the doctrine of "responsibility to protect" (R2P),which asserts that states have a responsibility to prevent genocide, war crimes, and other mass atrocities.

In recent decades, armed humanitarian interventions have been carried out in a number of countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. These interventions have had mixed results, with some being hailed as successes and others being widely criticized.

Learning From Somalia: The Lessons Of Armed Humanitarian Intervention

by Walter S Clarke

4 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	3597 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	287 pages

The ethical implications of armed humanitarian intervention are complex and contested. Supporters argue that it is sometimes necessary to use force to prevent or stop atrocities, even if this means violating the sovereignty of another state. Critics argue that intervention often does more harm than good, and that it can undermine the rule of law and lead to unintended consequences, such as increased violence and instability.

One of the key ethical challenges of armed humanitarian intervention is the question of whether it is ever justified to use force to protect civilians from their own government. This question is particularly difficult to answer in cases where the government is not directly responsible for the atrocities being committed, but is simply unable or unwilling to stop them.

Another ethical challenge is the question of how to balance the principle of non-intervention with the responsibility to protect. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state without its consent, but this principle has been challenged by the doctrine of R2P.

The effectiveness of armed humanitarian intervention is difficult to assess. Some interventions have been successful in preventing or stopping atrocities, while others have failed to achieve their objectives. There is no clear consensus on the factors that contribute to the success or failure of an intervention.

One of the challenges of evaluating the effectiveness of armed humanitarian intervention is the difficulty in isolating its effects from other factors, such as the political and economic conditions in the country being intervened. In addition, the long-term effects of an intervention can be very different from the short-term effects.

There are a number of lessons that can be learned from past armed humanitarian interventions. These lessons include:

Interventions should be carefully planned and executed. Interventions that are not well-planned or executed can lead to unintended consequences, such as increased violence and instability.
Interventions should be based on a clear and achievable objective. Interventions that do not have a clear and achievable objective are likely to fail.
Interventions should be carried out with the consent of the host government, if possible. Interventions that are carried out without the consent of the host government are likely to be met with resistance and may lead to violence.
Interventions should be supported by a broad coalition of states. Interventions that are not supported by a broad coalition of states are likely to be seen as illegitimate and may lack the resources to be effective.
Interventions should be prepared for the long haul. Interventions that are not prepared for the long haul are likely to fail.

Armed humanitarian intervention is a complex and controversial issue. There are strong arguments both for and against intervention, and the decision of whether or not to intervene in a particular situation is never easy. However, by learning from the lessons of past interventions, we can better understand the potential benefits and risks of intervention and make more informed decisions about when and how to intervene.

Learning From Somalia: The Lessons Of Armed Humanitarian Intervention

by Walter S Clarke

4 out of 5