Abstract
Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.
Highlights
Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations
The end of the Cold War produced a shift in the human rights discourse in the West
The immediate aftermath of the Cold War saw an uptick in intrastate warfare, accompanied by appalling instances of civilian victimization
Summary
Humanitarian intervention is a noble idea and a seemingly simple one. It is rooted in the principle of universal human rights, which insists that all human beings are endowed with basic inalienable rights and that these rights are not constrained by race, gender, age, or citizenship. That is why some especially egregious violations are defined as crimes against humanity, not just against the group of people that has been the target of those violations When such crimes are committed, the international community should have the right, the obligation, to intervene and to protect the victims. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, it has become obvious that the problem is far more complex than merely solving these problems It entails a set of inescapable trade-offs, and even these two oft-discussed issues – caring for strangers and taking the shield of sovereignty away from human rights violators – are not as simple morally, legally, and politically as they seem at first glance. The article analyzes the two most prominent cases of Western interventions in light of the discussion of those trade-offs – Kosovo and Libya – and provides a brief discussion of cases where the West either looked the other way or took the perpetrator’s side
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
