Essay Available:
Pages:
5 pages/≈1375 words
Sources:
-1
Style:
Harvard
Subject:
Social Sciences
Type:
Term Paper
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 25.92
Topic:
Briefing Paper Social Sciences Term Paper Research
Term Paper Instructions:
I am an advisor for the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He has asked me to write a briefing paper on the arguments for and against Britain intervening in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons. What arguments would you give and what recommendations would you make? Pls can the words be exactly 1375 words excluding referencing and can there be at least 8 sources pls and kindly no content table.
Term Paper Sample Content Preview:
Briefing Paper
Subject
Arguments for and against Britain intervening in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons
Background
When a country intervenes in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons, this concept is often referred to as humanitarian intervention. It is a concept that has been practiced since World War II and has developed over the years, through both the traditional and modern international law (Rattan 2019, p.1). Humanitarian interventions have gained a lot of focus over the last few decades due to their controversial nature. The controversy stems from the fact that humanitarian interventions can either lead to the salvation of a suffering population or the abuse of power by the intervening country (Zimmermann, 2014). Also, under international law, as provided by the United Nations (UN) Charter, humanitarian intervention assumes a very contradictory nature. On one hand, Article 2 of the UN Charter supports the non-intervention principle to ensure that all states maintain their sovereignty and independence (Rattan 2019, p.1). Under this principle, the UN cannot authorise humanitarian interventions within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. On the other hand, Article 47 of the Charter states that the Security Council can authorise the use of air, land, or sea forces if a country has committed aggression against humanity or has interfered with peace and security (Schultz 2017, p.422). The Security Council can invoke humanitarian intervention is such a case to restore or maintain peace and security in the said state. These two provisions of the UN Charter cause a dilemma, especially given that the decision to intervene on another state's affair is made by a collective and in other cases, by a single state (Schultz 2017, p.422). Under international law, several questions about humanitarian interventions are raised:
* What is the legality of humanitarian interventions? Is it legal when authorisation has been issued by the UN (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.4)? This question is of particular interest because in some cases, authorisation from the UN may be delayed or denied, yet a legitimate threat to humanity is present.
* How can abuse of power be checked to ensure that some states do not intervene in the affairs of other states with ulterior motives (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5), such as gaining control over certain resources in that state? This is especially crucial when UN authorisation is absent.
* Which type of cases should states, such as Britain, intervene in (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5)? This question addresses the issue of how states can decide which cases to intervene in, regardless of whether they have UN authorisation or not. Such cases include ethnic cleansing, systemic discrimination, or mass murder.
In the past, Britain has intervened with the affairs of another state for humanitarian purposes. For instance, in 2018, the British government, in collaboration with France and the United States, ordered airstrikes on Syria after learning that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons (House of Commons, 2018). While such interventions from Britain have occurred in other instances, they always spark a debate on the benefits and limitations of such a decision.
Analysis
There are various reasons to support and oppose Britain’s decision to intervene with the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons.
Reasons to Support
* Humanitarian interventions are focused on saving lives and preventing the extreme suffering of helpless people. Britain has, in the past, intervened in another state’s affairs to put an end to “extreme humanitarian suffering” in instances where there are no other available options (House of Commons 2018, p. 3). Such humanitarian interventions have been successful in the past, such as the Kosovo intervention, in which Britain was a participant. According to Gray (2019, p.1), the humanitarian interventions on Kosovo not only brought to an end the extreme human rights violation but also prevented further violence in that state. Thus, Humanitarian interventions are essential in the preservation of life.
* Britain, being a member state of the UN, has a responsibility to protect civilians. Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, states are required to protect their populations from atrocities, failure to which they lose their non-intervention protection form the UN Charter (Parliament.uk, 2014). The R2P principle aims at preventing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide (House of Commons 2018, p. 6). While the R2P is not a legal obligation, it is a moral obligation. Britain should observe R2P and show other states that if they are unable to protect their citizens they will take action through humanitarian intervention. In c...
Subject
Arguments for and against Britain intervening in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons
Background
When a country intervenes in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons, this concept is often referred to as humanitarian intervention. It is a concept that has been practiced since World War II and has developed over the years, through both the traditional and modern international law (Rattan 2019, p.1). Humanitarian interventions have gained a lot of focus over the last few decades due to their controversial nature. The controversy stems from the fact that humanitarian interventions can either lead to the salvation of a suffering population or the abuse of power by the intervening country (Zimmermann, 2014). Also, under international law, as provided by the United Nations (UN) Charter, humanitarian intervention assumes a very contradictory nature. On one hand, Article 2 of the UN Charter supports the non-intervention principle to ensure that all states maintain their sovereignty and independence (Rattan 2019, p.1). Under this principle, the UN cannot authorise humanitarian interventions within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. On the other hand, Article 47 of the Charter states that the Security Council can authorise the use of air, land, or sea forces if a country has committed aggression against humanity or has interfered with peace and security (Schultz 2017, p.422). The Security Council can invoke humanitarian intervention is such a case to restore or maintain peace and security in the said state. These two provisions of the UN Charter cause a dilemma, especially given that the decision to intervene on another state's affair is made by a collective and in other cases, by a single state (Schultz 2017, p.422). Under international law, several questions about humanitarian interventions are raised:
* What is the legality of humanitarian interventions? Is it legal when authorisation has been issued by the UN (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.4)? This question is of particular interest because in some cases, authorisation from the UN may be delayed or denied, yet a legitimate threat to humanity is present.
* How can abuse of power be checked to ensure that some states do not intervene in the affairs of other states with ulterior motives (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5), such as gaining control over certain resources in that state? This is especially crucial when UN authorisation is absent.
* Which type of cases should states, such as Britain, intervene in (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5)? This question addresses the issue of how states can decide which cases to intervene in, regardless of whether they have UN authorisation or not. Such cases include ethnic cleansing, systemic discrimination, or mass murder.
In the past, Britain has intervened with the affairs of another state for humanitarian purposes. For instance, in 2018, the British government, in collaboration with France and the United States, ordered airstrikes on Syria after learning that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons (House of Commons, 2018). While such interventions from Britain have occurred in other instances, they always spark a debate on the benefits and limitations of such a decision.
Analysis
There are various reasons to support and oppose Britain’s decision to intervene with the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons.
Reasons to Support
* Humanitarian interventions are focused on saving lives and preventing the extreme suffering of helpless people. Britain has, in the past, intervened in another state’s affairs to put an end to “extreme humanitarian suffering” in instances where there are no other available options (House of Commons 2018, p. 3). Such humanitarian interventions have been successful in the past, such as the Kosovo intervention, in which Britain was a participant. According to Gray (2019, p.1), the humanitarian interventions on Kosovo not only brought to an end the extreme human rights violation but also prevented further violence in that state. Thus, Humanitarian interventions are essential in the preservation of life.
* Britain, being a member state of the UN, has a responsibility to protect civilians. Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, states are required to protect their populations from atrocities, failure to which they lose their non-intervention protection form the UN Charter (Parliament.uk, 2014). The R2P principle aims at preventing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide (House of Commons 2018, p. 6). While the R2P is not a legal obligation, it is a moral obligation. Britain should observe R2P and show other states that if they are unable to protect their citizens they will take action through humanitarian intervention. In c...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: