Lindsey Lee November 23rd 2015Term Paper POS 524

Humanitarian Intervention: The Question of Sovereignty and Humanitarian Crisis

Following the catastrophes in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990’s, discussions in the

international community blazed on how to justly react when human rights are grossly and

systematically violated in the world. The question of whether states have unconditional

sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene in

a country for the sake of humanitarian purposes was, and still is to this day, seriously debated.

The discussions today surrounding the ethics of humanitarian intervention are surprisingly

uncontroversial, although incredibly powerful for justification. For a majority, the debates

address the issue of whether or not a body representing the ‘international community’, such as

the UN or NATO, is permitted to intervene in another country, breaching their sovereignty, in

the interest of protecting human rights. While actors on both sides of the humanitarian

intervention debate have provided undoubtedly powerful arguments, I align with those that

contend that in either situation- when a state is momentarily incapable of protecting individual

rights for various reasons later to be explained or is an active violator of those rights- it has

consequently forfeited its right to state sovereignty and the right to demand outside actors be

uninvolved. Furthermore, when one recounts violent eras in our world’s history, they cannot

deny wars that involved the state-making process involved violation of human rights. This

violence was historically understood as another part of the struggle to legitimize their state.

Consequently, I argue that it is absolutely crucial to determine whether violence is a consequence

1

of state-making, or whether the rights are being violated in a state that is already legitimate,

sovereignty has been established and recognized by the international community as such and is

violating mass human rights. Finally, above all, I believe that the international community needs

to put rest to the debates focusing on sovereignty being the utmost important factor in

determining whether humanitarian intervention is just or unjust. Rather, I propose that the

international community start embracing a more humanistic approach, focusing on the human

rights being violated in world crisis areas. However, when a discussion like this surrounding

morals and ethics arises, the question of whether or not it will ever be resolved is obviously

solicited. In retrospect, the question of whether abortion is morally right or wrong, or legally

just or unjust, has been circulating for decades, to no end. Likewise, the question of

humanitarian intervention being justified through moral obligation, or through legal justification

will without question continue to penetrate international relations debates for years to come.

In order to better understand why the notion of humanitarian intervention is such a

controversial topic in the international community, a brief overview of what it is and the origins

must be further explained. For the purpose of this paper, the term ‘intervention’ involves

unauthorized coercive interference in the domestic affairs of another state in turn infringing that

state’s sovereignty. Furthermore, when referring to ‘humanitarian’ interventions, I am referring

to gross or systematic violation of human rights, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and

politicide for example.

Humanitarian intervention as a formal legal definition does not exist. However, scholars

Kelly K. Pease and David P. Forsythe writing in Human Rights Quarterly published by Johns

Hopkins University states that it is “a foreign actor to use force within the territorial jurisdiction

2

of a state, without the consent of the ruling authority, to ameliorate or terminate violations of

internationally recognized human rights.”1 From this very basic definition, the notion of

humanitarian intervention is immediately recognized as being ambiguously problematic. The

international community recognizes state sovereignty to be one of the highest priorities on its

agendas.2 The fact that humanitarian intervention involves interference into another country

without that countries consent, consequently infringing upon that state’s sovereignty, makes this

incredibly controversial to a globalized world that cherishes the notion of sovereignty. However,

some argue that this infringement of sovereignty is justified due to gross violations of human

rights occurring in that country that are recognized by the international community. In the most

basic, simple terms, should states be able to coercively intervene in another country in an attempt

to stop violations of human rights from happening? Do those mass violations of human rights

make it politically just for the international community to infringe on a states sovereignty in

order to terminate human rights violations such as genocide, or ethnic cleansing? In short, some

say yes, it is a moral obligation for a country to save another counties citizen if their rights are

being violated. Others say no, that intervening in another country infringes on national

sovereignty, which the international community guaranteed they could have. However, another

controversy is based not on the above mentioned issues, but whether such an authority exists that

1 Kelly Kate Pease and David P. Forsythe, “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics,” Human Rights Quarterly 48 (1993): 290. 2 The Charter of the United Nations is available online at the URL: http://www . un . org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index . html . Article 2 of Chapter I in the charter explains “1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Chapter I is considered the section explain the purposes and principles of the United Nations organization. Of course, maintaining international peace and security is also within this chapter. This is why humanitarian intervention is so controversial, when two goals that have such high prominence and importance clash, what should the community do?

3

is able to claim they have a legal right at all to intervene in another country, such as the UN or a

military alliance such as NATO.3 Moreover, these controversies are just the tip of the iceberg.

There are numerous reasons why scholars and international actors argue for and against

humanitarian interventions. For this reason, it makes sense to examine the origins of the concept

itself.

The history of humanitarian intervention is complex. In dating legal violations of human

rights, I agree with scholars Kelly K. Pease and David P. Forsythe once again. They argue that

historically speaking, gross violations of human rights that were dealt with by treaty in the

international community stem from slave trading and international armed conflict.4 When trying

to explain the over all history of humanitarian interventions it begins to become quite the task.

Some may argue that the first example of a state intervening in the domestic affairs of another on

the grounds of humanitarian concerns was in the early 19th century during the Greek War of

Independence. Russia, France, and Great Britain intervened in the Ottoman Empire to help

Greek citizens seek independence from the Ottomans.

During the 20th century, after World War I, organizations like the League of Nations

attempted to mediate and settle international disputes and conflicts, yet the tension of the Great

Powers rising in the world led to a lack of will in the international community to enforce

anything ‘legally’. Aggressive actors were condemned by the international community, prior to

the outbreak of World War II, but they remained just that. However, upon the Allied forces

3 Mohammed Ayoob, “Humanitarian Intervention and International Society,” Global Governance 7 (2001): 225-27.4 Kelly Kate Pease and David P. Forsythe, “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics,” 295.

4

discovery of the Holocaust and the catastrophes in Eastern Europe in World War II, attitudes

toward humanitarian interventions changed drastically. And so, it was the creation of the United

Nations organization in 1945 that extensively internationalized human rights and humanitarian

interventions. Articles 55 through 60 in Chapter IX of the UN Charter promote human rights as

a principal purpose of its members.5 In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

was published by the General Assembly of the United Nation was published on December 10th

1948. The document contains 30 articles detailing the “equal and inalienable rights of all

members of the human family” in the world. Ironically, the Charter of the United Nations is also

used by critics as evidence against humanitarian intervention for sovereignty arguments. For

example, Chapter 1 Article 2 Section 7 states “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall

authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic

jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matter to settlement under

the present Chapter.”6 This is precisely why it is so important to remember that a main priority

of The Charter, even before stating Chapter 1 Article 2 Section 7, is to maintain international

peace and security. The entire idea and theory of the United Nations organization mimics the

idea of an international ‘peace keeper’, which is ironically what the UN military forces are

labeled. Therefore, when a nation has not maintained peace and security to its citizens, the UN’s

reason for being created in the first place, it has forfeited its right to sovereignty and ability to

deny outside nations from interfering in its internal affairs. It is first and foremost the duty of

5 “CHAPTER IX: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COOPERATION,” Charter of the United Nations, accessed November 12, 2015, http://www . un . org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-ix/index . html . 6 “The Charter of the United Nations,” Chapter 1 Article 2, http://www . un . org/en/sections/un- charter/chapter-i/index . html .

5

the UN members and the international community, as stated by the Charter, to maintain peace in

the world. So first, let us examine at when the international community does and does not

intervene in domestic affairs.

At the 2005 world summit, the UN community of states hailed the concept of

“responsibility to protect” (R2P) that was originally promoted by the Canadian Government.

The states committed to “take collective action, in a time and decisive manner, through the

security council, in accordance with the charter, including chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis

and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be

inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide,

war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.”7 This is, essentially, the terms in

which an intervention is planned. In the twentieth century, there have been a few cases of

unilateral humanitarian intervention, despite hundreds of other cases where the regimes have

been guilty of human rights violence, and no interventions occurred. Examples include India’s

intervention in East Pakistan, Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda, Vietnam’s intervention in

Cambodia, and the intervention cases of Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.8

Of course it is not possible to examine humanitarian intervention without a reference to

World War II and the Holocaust. In 1944 Allied troops moved across Europe against Nazi

Germany and encountered Nazi concentration camps in which prisoners where suffering from

acts of massive genocide, ethnic cleansing, and politicide. The liberation made most public was

7 Catherine Lu, “Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Ambition and Political Constraints,” International Journal 62 (2007): 942.8 Jan Nederveen Pieterse, “Sociology of Humanitarian Intervention: Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia Compared,” International Political Science Review 18 (1997):71-93.

6

the liberation of the concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau by the Soviets in January of 1945.

There was abundant evidence of mass murder at the camp, and the Soviets liberated only a

couple thousand prisoners that were left behind. In addition to the surviving prisoners which

were for the most part Jews, the Soviets also found thousands of items of clothing, shoes, and

thousands of other personal items such as toothbrushes and glasses all of which were evidence of

the mass genocide. Historians estimate that anywhere between 2.1 and 4 million people were

murdered systematically at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and for a large majority those people were

Jewish.9 In this specific publicized case, the Allied forces were sweeping across Europe in a war

with Nazi Germany so there was no action or policy on behalf of the Allied troops prior to

liberation of the death camps, signaling that their actions were on behalf of humanitarian

intervention. The Allied forces of course had been told of the horrors occurring in Europe

through hearsay, but had never seen it personally, much of their discovering came as horrific

surprises. However, the case of what is now understood as the Holocaust, has been consistently

used as an example to explain when humanitarian intervention is just and is possibly the most

well known. I maintain that this case, the Holocaust, is an absolutely justified case of what

humanitarian intervention should be. Now, in recent years, when humanitarian intervention has

been the hot topic for debate, tragedies like the Holocaust have not been repeated on such a mass

scale, fortunately. However, that is not to say that other cases in the world proving to be equally

as tragic have not occurred, because most would agree they certainly have. The question is

should the international community depend on political and legal constraints when deciding to

intervene? Or should the focus be more centered on a moral approach? 9 “Auschwitz-Birkenau: History and Overview,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed November 21, 2015, http://www . jewishvirtuallibrary . org/jsource/Holocaust/auschbirk . html .

7

There are two specific types of humanitarian intervention of which the moral question of

right and wrong as well as having the authority to do so, is not important and are rarely ever

challenged. The first, when governments have agreed to accept UN peacekeeping forces or

peace keepers or when a cease-fire agreement has been reached and secondly, when there is a

state-failure case when there is essentially no state government existing anymore because it has

failed to keep authority and thus, there is no sovereignty to infringe upon. When the latter case

occurs, humanitarian intervention is considered to be a good option if authority in that country

has collapsed.10 These cases of intervention are rarely debated as being illegitimate and unjust.

The cases where intervention involves the use of uninvited, violent force and therefore violates a

state’s claim to sovereignty, are where debates arise. At this debate’s core stands the issue of the

extent and the source of an actor’s authority to infringe a state’s sovereignty in order to protect

that states citizens from harmful human abuses. Examining a few past cases where the UN has

sanctioned interventions in countries in responses to humanitarian crises will now be shown to

show an example of when the international community has taken action.

A majority of people would agree that the United Nations is the closest organization we

have to a world authority. Thus, I will concentrate on this organization for a majority. In order

to “get the green light” on a humanitarian intervention the United Nations looks to the Security

Council for approval to authorize the use of military force. Drawing from examples of prior

military interventions in the last century, some observers have pointed out that cases of

10 Eric A. Heinze, “The Moral Limits to Humanitarian Intervention: Reconciling Human Respect and Utility,” Polity 36 (2004):543-58.

8

interventions before the Cold War have essentially no contemporary significance.11 Therefore, I

will concentrate on the years after the Cold War had ended and the United Nations had a

predominant role in international interventions.

Somalia was one of the first cases of which the Security Council and the United Nations

played a large role in a sanctioned intervention with humanitarian purposes. In 1991, Somalia’s

dictator, Said Barre, was overthrown in a coup which lead to various power struggles amongst

different groups who were then fighting for control of the country. At the same time, there was a

terrible drought occurring that showed it could potentially lead to mass starvation. With such

severe fighting in the country’s capital, and exceedingly difficult conditions for delivering aid

and food, the Security Council declared Somalia’s condition a humanitarian crisis being that it

threatened international peace and security. The nations that make up the United Nations were

reluctant and slow in response to the situation, fearing an intervention would infringe Somalia’s

sovereignty that was protected by the UN Charter. However, after repeated requests from

numerous aid agencies the Security Council adopted small operations to help combat the crises.

The situation grew exceedingly worse and the Security Council decided to implement more

radical actions. In 1992, the Security Council adopted Resolution 751 which launched 500

peacekeepers to provide security and aid, guard food depots, and oversee the ceasefire in

Somalia’s capital Mogadishu. The crisis in Somalia escalated quickly and became increasingly

worse during the year. The United States requested to lead an operation that called on multiple

nations to join forces to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief as quick as

11 Thomas G. Weiss, “Researching Humanitarian Interventions: Some Lessons,” Journal of Peace Research 38 (2001): 420. Weiss also notes that other observers are David A. Malone and Ramesh Thakur, “UN Peacekeeping: Lessons Learned,” Global Governance.

9

possible. This lead to “Operation Restore Hope”, which mandated the use of military force if

necessary. Although the environment for dispersal of humanitarian assistance was secured,

Operation Restore Hope failed to provide security in the country, as violence persisted. The UN

Security Council’s mission changed, focusing more on rebuilding Somalia as a nation, rather

than strictly providing humanitarian aid. Various failures of the UN and the Security Council

have been argued by the international community that lead to the violent conflicts with Somali’s

militaries. These clashes lead to drastic changes in the situation in Somalia, which went from a

peaceful intervention supplying aid and security, to a militarized focus impacted by social,

economic and political factors. As the environment grew more hostile to UN forces in Somalia,

the infamous incident of three U.S marines being killed in a Black Hawk helicopter being

downed was made highly publicized. Public opinion towards American participation in Somalia

was then in a downward spiral. President Bill Clinton of the U.S withdrew troops in 1994, and

the termination of the United Nations operation in Somalia was ended in 1995.12 The case of

Somalia is often referred to as a failed intervention by the international community.

The Rwandan genocide and civil war of 1994 is another intervention after the cold war

that is often brought up around discussions concerning humanitarian intervention.

Unfortunately, this too, it is often referred to as case of failing intervention on behalf of the UN

and international community. However, it is an important case study to focus on when explain

how the international community has intervened in a foreign state on humanitarian grounds. 12 “The Humanitarian Interventions of the UN,” The Politic, accessed November 21, 2015, http://thepolitic . org/the-security-councils-humanitarian-intervention/ . “Peace Operations: Withdrawal of U.S Troops From Somalia,” U.S Government Accountability Office, accessed November 21, 2015, http://www . gao . gov/products/NSIAD-94-175 .

10

Rwanda has been plagued with a long history of inter-ethnic conflict amongst the

countries two main ethnic groups, the Tutsis and the Hutus. The ethnic majority, Hutus, being

85 percent of the country and the minority, Tutsis, comprising approximately 14 percent of the

country have both demonstrated their willingness to oppress one another in order to enjoy power.

However, the Tutsis have occupied power and influence for a majority of the countries conflicted

history. After gaining Independence in 1962, a military coup gave the Hutus control of the

country for around three decades. In 1988, Hutus in opposition to the government as well as

exiled Tutsis established the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or the RPF, of which the aim was to

establish a new government based on cooperation from both ethnic groups with shared power.

Shortly thereafter, armed conflict between the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and the Hutu

Rwandan government escalated quickly, turning violent. In mid-1993, the RPF and the Hutu-

dominated government requested UN peacekeeping forces to assist the country with

implementing a new peace agreement they negotiated called the Arusha Accords. The Security

Council passed resolution 872 on October 5th 1993 sanctioning “United Nations Mission for

Rwanda”, UNAMIR, which involved a peacekeeping force with the aim of establishing a secure

environment for a transitioning government and elections, assist with compliance of the Arusha

Accords, and organize humanitarian activities. However, because of the countries historical

background of power struggles amongst the Hutus and the Tutsis, cooperation for a transitional

government was extremely difficult from the onset of UNAMIR. Furthermore, information was

passed on that Hutu extremists affiliated with the current government were militarizing, arming

themselves in bulk, and plotting to murder large numbers of Tutsis. Violence continued

throughout the country and in April of 1994 the Security Council ruled to extend the mandate of

11

UNAMIR. The very next day, the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi traveling back to the

Kigali Airport were killed as their plane was shot down with a rocket. As tensions peaked, the

government controlled radios called all Hutus to seek revenge on the Tutsi population for what

they had allegedly done, although it was not certain at the time who was responsible. This

sparked what is now the well known Rwanda Genocide, where systematic and orchestrated

murders of any and all identified Tutsis and opposition Hutus spread across the country at an

alarmingly rapid pace. The Security Council finally publicly acknowledged and condemned the

systematic killings, and declared the magnitude of human suffering in Rwanda a threat to

international peace and security, authorized protected humanitarian operation zones and

increased the UN forces to 5,500 troops. However, this did not stop the already in motion

genocide and academics estimate that as many as 800,000 people were systematically murdered

in Rwanda within the course of one year. Although The Security Council had expanded

UNAMIR’s mandates in various resolutions, the Rwandan government asked the UN and

UNIMIR to leave blaming them for not doing more to stop the genocide. Eventually the new

government of Rwanda secured peace in the country by driving out the Hutu extremists.13 Now,

if the United Nations had seriously looked into the deteriorating conditions of Rwanda when the

initial stress calls of human massacring happened, perhaps this could have ended differently.

The Rwanda intervention has received much criticism over the years, with overwhelming early

evidence that the Hutu population was systematically and methodically performing acts of

genocide and did not intervene until too late.

13 Ibid. and D.R.L Ludlow, “Humanitarian Intervention and the Rwandan Genocide,” The Journal of Conflict Studies 19 (1999): et all.

12

The next question that needs addressing is how has the notion of humanitarian

intervention has evolved since these examples? The earlier mentioned notion of “Responsibility

to Protect” or commonly referred to as R2P has been slowly shaped into and alongside

humanitarian interventions for quite some time now. R2P, or the mandate that when a state fails

to protect its people the responsibility shifts from the state to the international community, was

endorsed by the “High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change” in the Security Council

of the UN. At this report in 2004, the panel proposed fundamental criteria in order to receive the

authorization to use force in an intervention. Of those criteria, the level and seriousness of the

threat to the international community, the size of the response by the community, as well as it

must be determined as a last resort. Fast-forwarding to September of 2005, the United Nations

World Summit was held. This particular summit is monumental when examining the evolution

of humanitarian interventions over time. It was at this meeting that all of the member states

formally accepted their own responsibility of each and every state to protect its citizens from war

crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.14 Additionally, the member nations also agreed

that when any member state fails to provide that security and uphold that responsibility, all other

nations have the responsibility to protect people in that failed state that are threatened with such

stated crimes. The summit furthermore stated that the decisions and actions surrounding an

intervention should be timely and decisive. Finally, the last important notion to add to the

history of humanitarian intervention came in 2009 from a report from the Secretary General of

which a strategic three pillar approach to the R2P doctrine was outlined. The report states that,

14 “Background Information on the Responsibility to Protect,” The United Nations Website, accessed November 24, 2015, http://www . un . org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility . shtml .

13

“1. The state carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war

crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement; 2. The international

community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility; 3.

The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian

and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to

protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to

protect populations, in accordance with the UN Charter.”15 It is because of this that I argue

when a state has failed to provide its citizen’s peace, security, and protection from human rights

violation, its sovereignty has been forfeited. Not only have most states agreed to this doctrine of

R2P but now have severe international consequences if they do not abide by the UN Charter.16

Because the evolution of humanitarian intervention has slowly grown towards a more humanistic

approach, such as focusing much more of the types of crime being committed and the level of

cooperation on behalf of the States in order to terminate the wrongdoings, I argue that we

embrace the approach and evolve the same within the international political atmosphere.

One facet needs to be addressed. Because the concept of sovereignty is such an essential

and crucial part of this argument, it is important to address it. I agree with scholar Jack Donnelly

that “states may possess sovereign rights with respect to certain activities but not others. And

the range of those activities can, has, and will continue to change with time and place.”17

Sovereignty is still a crucial component to the UN Charter and I’m certain it will be for as long

15 Ibid., et al. 16 Ibid., et al. 17 Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights, Humanitarian Crisis, and Humanitarian Invention,” International Journal 48 (1993):614-15.

14

as the charter is in place. However, it should not be used as a tool that makes the world ripe for

war and conflict. The world is not a monopoly game board where people (states) claim as much

land as they can, and when someone wants it, passes through it, or threatens it there is conflict.

Rather, sovereignty should be understood as being compatible with responsibilities to other

states, as well as international organizations that are often created by states, such as the United

Nations. When examining sovereignty in this light, it is important to remind ourselves that

humanitarian intervention is aimed at stabilizing the state where conflict and violence is

occurring, not to dominate and take over power from the nation. Of course issues of cost,

resources, indirect consequences, support from other nations, and proportionality all need to be

considered before partaking in any intervention. But, the UN claims to embark on these

practical details prior to any decision making or policy actions. Even if the international

community embraces the notion of non-intervention as resting on respect of state sovereignty,

the moral justification case for humanitarian intervention remains incredibly powerful. The

innocent victims of a humanitarian crisis that make the interventions morally justified, cannot be

imagined to have chosen or consented to their fate. For example, the millions of victims of the

Nazi Regime in WWII, Jewish peoples, homosexuals, handicap peoples, etc. did not chose to be

systematically exterminated. Nor can we understand the Tutsi people of Rwanda as choosing to

be victims of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and politicide. And so, whether a Nation is

momentarily unable to provide protection from human rights violations, or whether a State is an

active violator it has in the very least, lost its moral authority to demand that outside nations

remain uninvolved.

15

By utilizing a human rights based view of humanitarian intervention it forces the

international community to deal with the specific types of rights that are being violated, and the

specific manner of which they are being violated. After drawing the conclusions to those

factors, and using the R2P 3 guidelines, the question as to whether or not the use of force in

humanitarian interventions is justified should be clear and self spoken.

Bibliography

Ayood, Mohammed. “Humanitarian Intervention and International Society.” Global Governance 7 (2001): 225-230.

16

Charter of the United Nations. “CHAPTER IX: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COOPERATION.” Accessed November 12, 2015, http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-ix/index.html.

Heinze, Eric A. “The Moral Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Reconciling Human Respect and Utility.” Polity 36 (2004): 543-558.

Jewish Virtual Library. “Auschwitz-Birkenau: History and Overview.” Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auschbirk.html.

Lawson, Stephanie. Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics. Cambridge: Polity, 2010.

Lu, Catherine. “Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Ambition and Political Constraints.” International Journal 62 (2007): 942-951.

Ludlow, D.R.L. “Humanitarian Intervention and the Rwandan Genocide.” The Journal of Conflict Studies 19 (1999):

Pease, Kelly Kate and Forsythe, David P. “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics.” Human Rights Quarterly 15 (1993): 290-314.

Pieterse, Nederveen Jan. “Sociology of Humanitarian Intervention: Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia Compared.” International Political Science Review / Revue international de science politique 18 (1997):71-93.

Solomon, M. Scott, Steven C. Roach, and Martin Griffiths. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. New York: Routledge, 2009.

The Politic. “Humanitarian Interventions of the UN.” Accessed November 21, 2015. http://thepolitic.org/the-security-councils-humanitarian-intervention/.

The United Nations Website. “Background Information on the Responsibility to Protect.” Accessed November 24, 2015. http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml.

U.S Government Accountability Office. “PEACE OPERATIONS: Withdrawal of U.S Troops From Somalia.” Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-94-175.

Weiss, Thomas G. “Researching Humanitarian Interventions: Some Lessons.” Journal of Peace Research 38 (2001): 419-428.

17