Evaluate the claim that humanitarian intervention is a justifiable intrusion into the sovereignty of a

state.

Answers should demonstrate an understanding of aspects of humanitarian intervention; for

example, the provision of troops for the protection of people facing extreme danger or human rights

violations.
* They should also demonstrate an understanding of the concept of sovereignty; for

example, sovereignty as characterizing a state’s independence, its control over territory and its

ability to govern itself.
* Answers are likely to refer to humanitarian intervention as being a liberal

concept, and refer to criticism of this by realists.

Arguments that humanitarian intervention is

a justifiable intrusion may include reference to:

1) the doctrine of responsibility to protect (RtP);

 

2) the motivation to save lives;

 

3) the need to address human rights violations;

 

4) limitations in the aims of humanitarian intervention;

 

5) the fact that it is often not an unilateral action, but legitimized by a collective security

organisation.

Arguments that humanitarian intervention is not

a justifiable intrusion may include reference to:

 

1) that it weakens the institution of sovereignty;

 

2) that it can be used as an excuse, or as a mask, for the pursing of national interests by

intervening states;

 

3) that its results can be uncertain and can result in possibly greater instability or even loss of life;

 

4) the assumption of moral superiority by the intervening nations.

The answer may make reference to specific examples such as to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo

in 1999; to military intervention in Libya in 2011; or to non-intervention,

eg in Darfur or Syria, and to the effects of these actions or non-actions.

 

Answers should include an evaluation of whether humanitarian intervention is a justifiable intrusion

into the affairs and sovereignty of the state.