Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention is the act of protecting people from degradation, deprivation and destruction physically, materially, socially and legally. The intervention is motivated by both altruistic humanitarian intentions and a philosophical paradigm that view individuals, communities and nation states as responsible to greater global ideals and humanity. Although the motivation to intervene and protect the rights of others is conceived or perceived as just, often the intention is obscured, at least in part for the benefit of the intervening party. Compounding the issue is the unforseen outcomes and consequences of actions that change one facet of a given situation yet create other problems more complex and insidious. Further to the issue
15). Many of the injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are specific to them, for example land rights and the stolen generations issues. In response to these issues, the Federal Government has discussed the adoption of a Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 to protect the rights of children and protect them from abuse. The House of Representatives Official Hansard states that 'Australia wide, 29.4 out of 1,000 Indigenous children have been the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect compared to 6.5 out of 1,000 non-Indigenous children' (2007, p. 4) and the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in 'out-of-home care' is significantly higher than those of other children (2007). The Government understands that this abuse can have long-term effects on children and the introduction of the bill will ensure the protection of these children. The bill itself is an example of humanitarian intervention; the rights of the children are recognised and the Government is intervenening to see that these children are
The premise is that although interventions will most likely cause a measured degree of destruction and death it is carried out on the view of minimising harm and to stop genocide which is the act of or 'intent to destroy a national, ethical, racial or religious group’ as outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although humanitarian intervention can be justified it must be carefully considered when the act of intervention can result in war and casualties of the people they are trying to protect. Despite the moral and ethical reasons for intervening, other questions must be asked; such as how large is the group being persecuted? How serious does the threat to the people have to be before intervening? Do the rights of the individual outweigh the right of the collective? Is one more important than 100? Often these are moral questions in themselves and to some may not support human