|Title:||Humanitarian Intervention?: Military and Non-military Responses to Global Emergencies (Wilton Park Papers)|
|Format:||lit docx azw mobi|
|ePUB size:||1846 kb|
|FB2 size:||1571 kb|
|DJVU size:||1372 kb|
|Category:||Politics and Government|
|Publisher:||Stationery Office Books (November 1995)|
How can deterrence be tailored to meet contemporary and likely future threats? Date: Sun 16 - Wed 19 March, 2008. Wiston House, Steyning. BN44 3DZ. +44 (0) 1903 815 020. For more information see Your stay at Wilton Park.
The concept of humanitarian intervention to prevent abuses of human rights has an expanding range of nonmilitary instances and applications. But, in spite of this, the definition of such intervention continues to be heavily biased toward its military variant. Indeed, humanitarian intervention is usually defined as forcible or coercive infringement of a state’s sovereignty by some external agency for the sake of preventing abuses of human rights. Here the external agency is usually understood as an intergovernmental body, such as the United Nations, or a coalition of states, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or a regional body, such as the African Union
intervention when referring to military action, and to forget the fallacious slogans of military humanitarianism, and n interventions. The primacy of the humanitarian organisation in humanitarian work must be reaffirmed – in the first instance, humanitarian work should be performed by humanitarian organisations. 8 Civilian implementation is always preferable to military Both humanitarian agencies and key military policy makers agree that in principle, the military should not normally engage in the direct delivery of humanitarian assistance. Presented at the Wilton Park Conference 23 April. Barry, Jane, ‘A Bridge too far: Humanitarian.
Humanitarian interventions supported by the military are nothing new. Since President George . soldiers into Somalia in 1992, military interventions for humanitarian purposes have been on the rise. Since then, three subsequent presidential administrations have deployed military forces to support humanitarian endeavors. Instead, controversy over when to use the military and for what purpose took the place of this grand strategy. Today, terms such as never again and the responsibility to protect (R2P) have become commonplace. together to avoid conflict. Non-democratic governments are the only ones which are projected to be threats to peace in the international system. As applicable to the case studies of Rwanda and Somalia, this strategy required strong international institutions to play an avid role in maintaining this nonexistent peace.
Natural Disasters and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: A Comparison. The following is Part II, section 1 of from my MSc thesis. The different responses is rooted in the nature off the event (natural disaster compared to conflict). The competency of Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) has been embraced by many nations and deployed in peace operations to promote cooperation and coordination between civil actors, civilian international governmental, non-governmental organisations and military forces in addressing issues which aid in speedy resolution of disputes and restoration of humanitarian norms.
is humanitarian intervention legal? 301. and the strategic manipulation by states who see in humanitarianism a useful instrument to justify their military interventions.
Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic human rights. 1. Controversies about humanitarian military intervention. 2. Judging success and failure.
My military career has spanned much of the Cold War years and has taken me to places like Malaysia during the period of confrontation over its forma- tion, Vietnam, Europe at the height of the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction, and most of Southeast Asia. I was an instructor at the British Army Staff College at the time of the establishment of UNIFIL - the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon - a serious aberration in the determinedly passive international peacekeeping approach to that time. Counter-insurgency operations was an interesting place to caste this emerging area of military engagement in 1978. I suspect that it happened more by accident than good planning, but with the post Cold War blending of military peace operations and complex humanitarian emergencies a quarter of a century on, it now seems to have been the right place for it to be.
But the recent debate has its origins in the Cold War and was motivated by a number of controversial military actions. Three in particular stand out: India’s intervention in the Bangladesh War of 1971; Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in 1978, which resulted in the overthrow of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime; and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1979, which ousted the dictator Idi Amin.
Using the example of humanitarian military intervention, critically assess the claim that the contemporary security environment requires revision of current legal and political practices. As argued by Portela (2000) ‘given that humanitarian intervention exists, the law must rise to the occasion and evolve a framework to accommodate and regulate the phenomenon’.