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.
