Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Armed Humanitarian Intervention
Transcript of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
Armed Humanitarian Intervention
Definition: when a nation uses their Military "arms" against another nation whose supreme authority is violating human rights
There are pros and cons to Armed Humanitarian Intervention
Must involve a threat
Involves military force
Interferes in internal affairs of a state
Motivated by humanitarian purposes
2 basic point of views: Statist and Globaist
Do you find it ethical to use violence as a way to stop violence towards other humans? Why or not not?
These examples will show the Statist and Globalist perspectives, while also including ethical concerns
Do the benefits of Armed Humanitarian Intervention (if any) outweigh the potentially negative after effects?
Do you think Just War works? Do people follow the current definition?
Future Events- Will Armed Humanitarian Intervention happen again? Will it work?
It is important to note that Armed Humanitarian Intervention does not include sanction interventions and humanitarian aide interventions.
Is there a better system or way to solve human rights violations?
Armed Humanitarian Intervention involves one sovereignty getting involved of the internal affairs of another
Statists do not support AHI because they believe the state's rights should not be ignored
Globalists support AHI because they believe issues are now global
AHI can be sanctioned or unsanctioned- Unsanctioned interventions usually occur because of "Just War" claims
AHI and the powers that control it are always changing- who is involved, what is being used to attack, and how they intervene
The success of AHI is opinion and situational based
A "morally good" or "morally justifiable" war
Douglas P. Lackey states " a just war is a morally justifiable war after justice, human rights, the common good, and all other relevant moral concepts have been consulted and weighed against the facts and against each other
Has to meet at least the criteria:
JUS AD BELLUM: Just Cause, Right Intention, Last Resort, Relative Justice, Open Declaration, Proportionality and Reasonable Hope
JUS IN BELLO: Discrimination and Proportionality
Argument: No war is ever just from both sides
- No, AHI infringes on my Sovereignty
- In fact, all AHIs only bring about negative effects, namely the depreciation of sovereignty which I hold to be supreme.
- Yes, protecting the innocent is of the utmost importance. Even if that means going to extremes to intervene.
NO such thing as “Human Rights”
Sovereignty Reins Supreme
Citizen rights replace Human Rights
-Better defined ethical guidelines
Include human rights
Internal Revolts Must Be Met with Retaliatory Violence.
-Absolutely Not! Internationally
External Intervention Undermines My Sovereignty
Sovereign states have a responsibility to protect foreign civilians that do not have the means to protect themselves.
Ethical to use violence when following the just war tradition.
-Bush administration goes to war under the guise of Armed Humanitarian Intervention after 9/11.
-The war lasted for a number of years and resulted in numerous civilian casualties.
-Questions the proportionality of AHI
The Globalist Perspective on Armed Humanitarian Intervention is that Sovereign states have the responsibility to protect the human rights of those in foreign countries who do not have the means to protect themselves.
"When a state is said to be sovereign, it holds supreme authority domestically and independent authority internationally.” - Robert Jackson
Armed Humanitarian Intervention knowingly disregards a states sovereign rights to "Supreme Authority" within their own country. Thereby lessening if not destroying the idea of sovereignty.
These two concepts can not logically stand together in a coherent definitional system.
"We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international correlation that sends a clear message.” - Barack Obama
Good Example of Last Resort
Will we reach the Last Resort?
-Libyan revolts and protests against
Gadaffi met with military violence.
-NATO sent in to protect citizens
under the threat of harm.
-Debates are still occuring whether it was
a true humanitarian intervention, or
changing a harsh regime.
Are the reasons for intervening truly humane only?
Could there be any ulterior motives, or risks of changes after the intervention.
Risks of imperialism or things going awry are common.
Our involvement in the Spanish American War began as a humanitarian intervention...
then it turned into imperialism.