Intro: humanitarian intervention is priority over sovereignty

Lisa’s partHumanitarian intervention should be prioritised due to limited enforcement of rule of law + the importance of human rights (should fight just wars when necessary)

Be it in the present world, or in the past, people worldwide have acknowledged the importance of human rights, and sought to find ways and means to uphold such a sacred thing, resulting in international conventions such as the Geneva Convention, regulated by legitimate international bodies like the UN.

However, there is a “limited effectiveness of formalized legal norms as a means of promoting human rights.” [Passage A, P2, L19-20] All countries have laws, be it based on secular or religious beliefs, but it only has limited scope(?) in protecting the human rights of its citizens. The laws can certainly cover the criminal acts commited by citizens, but complications arise when the rulers themselves start crimes against humanity. The most unruly of leaders may put themselves above the law, neither respecting nor enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their actions, leaving their citizens under the mercy of their whims. The decimation of the Tutsis in the Rwanda Genocide, the recalcitrant and unapologetic regime in Syria, and the civil unrest and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; all include heinous crimes against humanity which ignore the sanctity of human rights, even after peaceful alternatives have been used.

Humanitarian intervention, “(asserting) a moral right to ‘get actively involved in other people’s conflicts;” [Passage B, P4, L25] is used as a reason to start wars “based not on territorial ambitions, but values,” [Passage B, P4, L30] if “it was the only way to stop dire suffering.” [Passage B, P4, L30] If all other peaceful methods to resolve conflict were exhausted and still the conflict continues, humanitarian intervention is used to start wars to both stress the point that the other nations do not tolerate such actions, and as a protective measure for non-combatants. The aim of the war is thus not for violence or greed, but for just causes and right intentions. Such intervention into conflicts include the 2013 Security Council-approved intervention into the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and non-approved interventions like NATO’s into Kosovo and more recently, Libya. Even though offensive measures were taken, such measures were in the spirit of protection and moral righteousness (?), as humanitarian intervention is supposed to be – protecting the civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were largely regarded by the world as successful, and saved many lives, achieving the motives of humanitarian intervention. This is important when considering whether to prioritize humanitarian intervention, or to uphold the sovereign right of nations. (413 words)

De Rong’s partBalance: Prioritisation does not mean condoning abuse, intervention should be weighed to minimise ineffectivenessHumanitarian intervention, after all, could be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, as exemplified in the case of US intervention in Syria against ISIS. It was ineffective because it was a futile attempt to train Syria rebels (in one year) and expect them to turn the tide of war against the well-supplied ISIS groups. It was counterproductive because some US heavy arms ended up in the hands of the terrorist group, and boosted their military power instead. In essence, the notion of intervention might not be a very feasible one to start with.

Intervention needs to be carefully weighed because it can cause unintended harmsOn closer examination, the ends might not even justify the means from the utilitarian point of view. “[An] armed intervention, even if its declared aims are benign, can set off a whole chain of terrible consequences” (Passage B, Paragraph 7, Lines 61-63), which “must be weighed to ensure that it will not do more harm than good to the people it seeks to protect” (Passage B, Paragraph 9, Lines 77-78). Humanitarian intervention, when done improperly, may spell more troubles than help current matters. NATO’s intervention turned out to be equally, if not more, serious than the ethnic cleansing activities in Kosovo, as evidenced by the extremely high death tolls and the mass-displacement of both Albanian and Serb Kosovars which occurred as a result of the bombing campaign. To make matters worse, an estimated 800,000 refugees fled Kosovo into neighbouring states, creating

a humanitarian crisis of displaced people. To top it off, many of them never returned to their homes in the region, which means that NATO was responsible, in part, for the permanent removal of Kosovo’s Serb population. Clearly, an intervention could set off a series of adverse consequences that affect both the people’s welfare and countries’ political interests. Humanitarian intervention is always proposed with a part of its intention being helping another nation or person, but such a notion is too idealistic; an armed intervention would, inevitably, have to hurt some people before saving the people we seek to protect. The act of humanitarian intervention thus has to be re-evaluated carefully.

If the harms are not taken into account during decision making, it may lead to abuse Humanitarian intervention is also prone to be abused for non-humanitarian interests, otherwise known as ““altruistic” purposes” (Passage B, Paragraph 4, Line 35). “Legal restraints on humanitarian intervention are necessary because dictators too often use it to justify criminal aggression” (Passage A, Paragraph 5, Lines 50-52). There are simply no ‘just wars’ without strings attached. For instance, United States (the main contributor to Operation Allied Forces) was accused of selectively using the humanitarian crisis to assert their influence over Europe and consolidate NATO’s regional dominance because of NATO’s lack of action in defence of Kurdish and East Timorese human rights from abuse by the Turkish and Indonesian states, and its nonchalance towards Croatian government’s ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina in 1995. Therefore, NATO’s intervention was often condemned for the lack of right intentions to promote just causes because its motivations were primarily material and selfish, which were largely based on “territorial ambitions [rather than] values” (Passage B, Paragraph 4, Line 30). As the primary motives for military action are hard to qualify and tend to be dubious, it is easy to argue that a lack of intention could endanger the strength of a just cause argument, and hence devalue the need for humanitarian intervention. (551 words)

Yi Fei’s partDespite prioritisation on intervention, sovereignty should not be taken lightly. But all in all respect for sovereignty cannot be used to undermine the need to intervene, as globalization renders sovereignty conditional.

However, many people would argue that state sovereignty should not be forgotten when considering humanitarian intervention. In a world where all states are deemed equal under the international law, forcibly positioning armed troops in another country, with the intention to resolve domestic conflict on behalf of the ruling body, sends a very pernicious message that the nation is now seen as a “failed state” that cannot be trusted to manage their own issues. By choosing to intervene, while many lives may be saved, irrevocable harm could be done to the nation in the long term, as the legitimacy of the ruling government over the domestic affairs is irreparably undermined by external forces. The erosion of authority will certainly destabilise the social construct of the state itself, a consequence that external forces will not stay long enough to experience (insert examples). Hence, it is clear that sovereignty should not be taken lightly even when an urgent need for humanitarian intervention is demonstrated.

Despite so, the Westphalian model of sovereignty should not be used to undermine the need to intervene, as in Geremek’s words, “the principle of non-intervention in a state’s internal affairs was never absolute, and globalization confronts it with a radical challenge.” [Passage A, P6, L58-59]. With globalization characterizing our world today, our interdependence means that while each state has a duty to respect each other’s jurisdiction system, when crises arise to the extent that the effects of war spill across borders, the states will also have a duty to protect their own citizens at all costs, even when it means intervening in the source of conflict at another sovereign state. Long, drawn out wars, allowed to fester on its own, sometimes proves to cause more than just economic and political woes in neighbouring countries; the standoff between Assad and the Syrian rebels, for instance, allowed ISIS to take advantage of the power vacuum in the East and take over large swaths of land for their own, resulting in a global threat we see today. Therefore, we believe that when the need arises, intervention should still be the main priority, even when it clashes with the principle of sovereignty under the International Law. (363 words)

ReferencesCutler A. C., Journals.cambridge.org, (2001). Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy. [online] Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/ displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=74937 [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015].

Mulcaire C., E-International Relations, (2014). How ‘Westphalian’ is the Westphalian Model?. [online] Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/03/how-westphalian-is-the-westphalian-model/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015].

Smith N., Articlemyriad.com, (2012). Relevance of the Westphalian System to the Modern World By Sasha Safonova. [online] Available at: http://www.articlemyriad.com/relevance -westphalian-system-modern-world-sasha-safonova/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015].

Jon’s partWe feel that humanitarian intervention could be better regulated. Countries may resort to humanitarian intervention without consideration of the host country’s situation. (EXAMPLE?) Hence, we should not prioritize humanitarian intervention as it may not be the best solution to solving these human rights crises. The author has mentioned that "Political, diplomatic, legal and economic measures should be tried before any resort to arms." (Passage _, P_, L_). In other words, the author is saying that all methods should be exhausted before countries turn to humanitarian intervention. For example, diplomacy and even economic sanctions can be used to try and resolve the crisis first.The EU and Syria have had long-standing bilateral ties since 1977, and they have since negotiated an Association Agreement. However, due to the current internal conflict, the signing of said agreement was put on hold, and has even led to restrictive measures by the EU, including banning crude oil and petroleum product imports, and additional export restriction for equipment for the oil and gas industry, among others. (173 words)

Total (1690 words)