Criteria for armed intervention in modern international relations

Armed Intervention Crisis

Modern day international relations are constructed on a political focus towards open communication and collaboration in promoting the values which safeguard the well-being of all global citizens. Despite this however, diplomacy still encounters numerous challenges and even fails in certain regions. This, sadly enough, translates into the emergence of armed interventions. The most relevant example in this sense has been the commencement of the War on Terror, the trademark of the Bush administration in its effort to eradicate global terrorism.

Given the ongoing wars and the intervention of other states, a question is being posed relative to the reasons which determine the decision to intervene. Otherwise put, what are the criteria for initiating an armed intervention? The traditional answer, however contradictory at times, is that there are five sets of criteria:

(1) Sovereignty -- States are forbidden from intervening in other sovereign countries, unless invited to do so (2) National interest -- Intervention is decided in terms of the interest and objectives of the invading country

(3) Human rights -- Armed intervention generally occurs whenever there are breakages of human rights

(4) Expected net effect on the human condition -- this basically refers to the cost of the armed intervention, such as the expected casualties or the financial losses

(5) Finally, the last criterion is that of multilateralism in the meaning that the intervening country seeks the support and cooperation of other sovereign states or international institutions, such as the United Nations ()

As it can be observed from the simple presentation of the five criteria, the rationale behind armed interventions may be conflicting. The following lines pinpoint to some of these incompatible criteria:

Countries cannot invade other sovereign states, but human rights are stronger than sovereignty, meaning that armed intervention is accepted in such cases

The net effect of an armed intervention is the loss of lives, both military as well as civilian; the third criterion states that armed conflicts emerge to protect populations against breakages of human rights; the war itself however breaks human rights by willingly sending soldiers to die

The national interest is safeguarded in the decision of armed interventions; the protection of a country's citizens, namely military in this case, represents a national interest, but is not being considered

The final criterion argues that states look for support and cooperation from other international players in deciding an armed intervention; yet, most of the reasons are based on national interests