Intervention on Humanitarian Grounds: A Scholarly Debate

Abstract

For decades, humanitarian intervention, defined as the use of military force by one or more states to prevent or stop widespread human rights violations, has sparked intense discussions and debates. Those in support of its claim that intervention is imperative to halt vulnerable populations from suffering defined atrocities such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of war crimes. Critics, however, argue that such interventions violate state sovereignty, are politically motivated, and often result in negative consequences. This paper thoroughly examines the arguments on both sides of the debate, analyzing the various ethical, legal, and practical issues concerning humanitarian intervention. It also provides that while some instances can permit justification for morally motivated military action, the actual operationalization of such an action is politically biased, selectively applied, and risks deepening pre-existing conflict.