This paper will argue, that the decision to intervene or not, depends on political will to do so, which itself derives from a correlation between anticipated costs and benefits. Intervention will occur only when, under consideration of all factors, the benefits outweigh the costs. After a brief review of cold war conditions, this essay will concentrate on key factors, which influence political will for humanitarian intervention in the post cold war era. All factors will be considered by supportive cases compared to Rwanda as an example for lacking political will.
Table of Contents
1. Why do states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others?
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the factors that influence the political will of states to engage in humanitarian interventions. It investigates why, despite humanitarian needs, states act selectively based on a cost-benefit calculation that prioritizes political considerations over pure moral imperatives.
- The impact of the international system on intervention decisions.
- The influence of anticipated success and risk assessment on state actions.
- The role of media coverage and public opinion in shaping political will.
- The importance of national interest, including security and economic concerns, in determining intervention.
Excerpt from the Book
Why do states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others?
Sovereignty emerged along with the appearance of the modern state system, and sets the currant norm in international relations (Forsythe & Pease 1993, pp. 291-294). Although often violated, the principle of Non-Intervention is carefully guarded by the nation states, especially by third world states and those who perceive themselves as potential targets of intervention (Ayoob 2004, pp. 100-104). Nevertheless, there is a remarkable trend to alter this concept for humanitarian intentions, predominantly by western, democratic nations (Ayoob 2002, pp. 83-85). States are willing to intervene for upholding human rights, because human suffering is less tolerated. Some scholars go as far as to speak of a responsibility to intervene of the capable, to protect the weak (MacFarlane 2004, pp. 978-979). Traditionally, intervention describes an intended act of interference, which occurs when an external agency violates a state's autonomy and territorial integrity against its will (Vincent 1974, pp. 8-13). The concept of humanitarian intervention is therefore an intervention in order to relief physical suffering, to end violent misuse of authority, or generally to prepare humane conditions of living for the local people by force (Holzgrefe 2003, p. 18). However, states do not intervene in any case human rights are threatened, they tend to be selective. This paper will argue, that the decision to intervene or not, depends on political will to do so, which itself derives from a correlation between anticipated costs and benefits.
Summary of Chapters
Why do states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others?: This chapter analyzes the historical and political determinants of humanitarian intervention, arguing that state decisions are driven by cost-benefit analyses rather than purely altruistic human rights concerns.
Keywords
Humanitarian Intervention, Political Will, Sovereignty, Non-Intervention, National Interest, Cost-Benefit Analysis, International System, Cold War, Rwanda, Somalia, CNN Effect, Public Opinion, Human Rights, Security, Geopolitics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper explores the decision-making process of states regarding humanitarian interventions and why they choose to act in some crises while ignoring others.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The work covers international relations, the concept of sovereignty, the role of political will, the impact of media, and the significance of national strategic interests.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to explain how political will—derived from the relationship between anticipated costs and benefits—dictates the likelihood of a state intervening in humanitarian emergencies.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, examining historical cases such as Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti to test the influence of various factors on intervention decisions.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The text examines the influence of potential success, mission duration, historical relationships, UN authorization, the "CNN effect," and national interests on state intervention strategies.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Humanitarian Intervention, Political Will, National Interest, Sovereignty, and the CNN Effect.
How does the author view the influence of the "CNN effect"?
The author argues that the CNN effect does not directly cause an intervention, but rather influences the political climate and defines state interests, thereby increasing the pressure to act.
Why did the international community fail to intervene effectively in the 1994 Rwandan genocide?
According to the text, the lack of strategic interest for major powers, combined with the negative experience of the Somalia intervention, led to a lack of political will to accept the costs of a large-scale deployment.
- Citar trabajo
- MIR, MA Sebastian Plappert (Autor), 2007, Humanitarian Intervention: "Why do states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others?", Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/153935
