Humanitarian intervention: When is it justified? One of the most controversial concerns of 20th and 21st century international affairs is the question of when it is justified to embark upon humanitarian interventions. On one hand, there have been clear examples in recent history of genocides (most notably in Rwanda and Bosnia) that clearly defy human decency. On the other hand, the concept of national sovereignty well as the logistics and costs of a coordinated humanitarian intervention can be daunting. Furthermore, calls for humanitarian intervention also often provoke concerns about using such interventions as the pretext for self-interested actions of a more powerful state. This paper will argue that while there are legitimate philosophical objections to humanitarian interventions, on a practical basis such interventions are required to preserve international stability and to prevent future warfare.

A number of theorists of international relations believe that humanitarian interventions of any kind are unjustified. As noted by Benjamin Valentino in his essay, "The true costs of humanitarian interventions," even though the idea of aiding civilians in need may be appealing in the media, it is extremely difficult at times to select who is the aggrieved party. While he acknowledges that the Tutsi victims of Rwanda and the Bosnian Muslims of Serbia were just as innocent as the Jewish victims of World War II, he counters that the military factions purporting to represent these groups were often problematic in character given that they too had committed crimes in the past and the international community did not want to appear to be taking sides in a political conflict (Valentino 2011). But engaging in humanitarian interventions, even when done under the neutral shield of the United Nations almost inevitably means determining who is right and who is wrong. In a state of armed conflict, often no...

Others object to the very notion that the military can be used to enact a humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian interventions may encompass a wide variety of strategies. Some may be genuinely peacekeeping in a pure sense, such as going to a natural disaster area to prevent looting. Others may have a limited, defined military role such as to prevent the encroachment of one foreign power into another's territory or to protect civilians. But mission creep may be inevitable and the military may find itself placed more and more in the protective capacity of one side vs. another.
Furthermore, the question of national sovereignty cannot be ignored (Hoffman 1995: 34). States, according to classical theories of international affairs, have a right to self-determination; the international community cannot set a rigid set of standards by which all nations must live. If so, does the United States' embrace of the death penalty constitute an abuse, given the widespread abandonment of this punishment by most of the major Western democracies? What about Saudi Arabia's oppression of women? Drawing a line in the sand can be challenging. Finally, humanitarian interventions must almost by definition be limited, given the difficulties of securing international support for an action within a sovereign state and the fact that such interventions often do not fully address the real, root causes that generated the problem (Hoffman 1995: 40).

Proponents of humanitarian intervention would counter that such interventions uphold the notion that justice must prevail above sovereignty, and that sovereignty itself is not a universal and absolute good. The conflicts between states can easily spill over into other borders, violating the rights of the citizens of neighboring nations. Humanitarian interventions can save lives and also prevent further and more deeply-entrenched conflicts from taking hold (Hoffman 1995: 35). Beyond this somewhat self-interested defense of international policing is the question of mass suffering which is an affront to human decency, transcending localized and cultural standards. Once again, this definition of crimes against humanity is admittedly difficult to assess (Hoffman 1995: 38). Genocide has typically been the most obvious example of a universal crime against humanity, no doubt because of the lingering shadow of the Holocaust. The most praised international humanitarian interventions in Rwanda and Bosnia were both characterized by actions against attempts at ethnic cleansings; but does this mean that there are also other instances while technically not motivated…