It has previously been held that, the States should not interfere with the domestic political affairs of other countries, since all sovereign states should have complete control of their own citizenry, free from outside interference. This is in line with the Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State which states that the goals of the foreign policy are “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community” (Kissinger 2001, p4)
The foreign policy of the United States is the guiding principle for which the United States interacts with foreign nations and sets standards of interaction for its corporations, and even its citizens.
However, situations arise such that there is great necessity for the states to get involved. This is for instance in a case whereby the economic and democratic events in the said nations will affect those of the states. Thus, the question at hand becomes “At what point do the effects of actions inside your country affect others so much that they now should have the right to interfere with how you handle your country?" This was expresses in Yahooanswers.com by an American citizen. The United Nations has a structure that provides direction on how other nations can interfere with others. This is in line with humanitarian intervention in which case there is the use of military force in the first party country (ies). According to chapter 53 of the U.N. Charter, “The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state... until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.” (Un.org/../chapter7.shtml) It is therefore in order when the states interfere with the domestic political situations of other countries, but, what are the real conditions that would trigger such interference? This essay discusses these conditions in light of historical situations such as those that occurred in Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia and even Libya. Former research has been reviewed to provide insight as discussed in the literature review.
Conflict is defined as an activity that imposes costs on the individual(s) involved, in contrast with some alternative peaceful pattern of behaviour: (Klintworth 1992, p 249-250) According to (Corbbeta, 2010, 65) one of the most taxing decision that the United States have to make is how and when to intervene or mediate in on-going conflicts in other states, as well as which states they should intervene in and which they should not. In addition in his paper the studies that have been conducted have not covered the intervening spectrum in totality. They deal with humanitarian intervention more than the possible motivations that lead to such interventions. Conflicts breed wars such as those in Rwanda genocide, in Somalia, Kosovo, Pakistan, and Angola among others. While these wars impose huge costs on the societies involved, costs that last long after the killing has stopped: (Ghobarah et al., 2003, p25, Kydd). Such effects include terrorism, undermining friendly neighbouring regimes, loss of human life, increasing numbers of refugees to other countries, economic stability, security stability, just to mention a few (Kydd, p102). Besides the fighting nations, there are third party nations with which the fighting nations have formed alliances with that are also affected. Therefore, the need to put off conflict from arising and solve those that are taking place.
Humanitarian intervention has been defined as when a state or a group of states employs...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document