1
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS: BALANCING GLOBAL SECURITY
CONCERNS WITH STATE SOVEREIGNTY PRINCIPLES
Introduction
Increasing global interconnectedness and the rise of humanitarian crises
With the subject of globalization having enhanced technology, communication, and
transport, there is a trend towards humanitarian emergencies that require the involvement of third
parties. Large scale conflicts arising from civil wars, dictatorial regimes, epidemics, floods, and
famines cross borders more easily now due to globalization. The belief that one should avoid
intervening in matters that are considered internal affairs of a country is a paradox to the
fundamental principle of refusing to watch people suffer on a massive scale. Humanitarian
interventionists claim that when a state is unwilling or incapable of protecting certain groups of
people, the international community should intercede through diplomatic, economic, or even
forcible measures. However, critics argue that such interventions may be used selectively in the
geopolitical interests of specific powerful states, establish undesirable precedents for disregard of
sovereignty or even worsen an already tenuous situation through force. As for the relationship
between these tensions, there are no clear-cut instructions on how to address these challenges
that may occur in connection with human rights abuse or humanitarian crises: global security vs
state sovereignty. In each case there are many factors, historical, political and social which have
to be taken into consideration as well as various opinions as to who has the right to security and
who is oppressed. It means that the globalized age adds a layer of complexity to the foreign
policy context in which states and other actors find themselves in situations in which they have
to respond to humanitarian crises.
2
Tension between international responsibility and respect for state sovereignty
The conflict of international duties and state authority arises when wanting to protect and
uphold rights or to prevent and/or mitigate a humanitarian crisis in another state, as the
international community has a decision to make whether it is appropriate to interfere with the
state‘s internal affairs due to security concerns or whether it should leave the state alone because
it is sovereign. Sure, there are arguments for and against sovereignty principles: while states have
the right to political independence and domestic sovereignty without outside interference, states
that abuse their citizens‘ rights, massacre them, or perpetrate other atrocities forfeit some
sovereign rights, and the international community has a moral responsibility to protect innocent
lives. But as to its usage, the practical application remains still a topic of debate because it is
sometimes unclear when the intervention is humanitarian and when it is politically motivated and
the whole intervention might lead to other issues such as deaths of the civilians or the state
destabilization. The UN tried to elaborate some principles concerning State responsibility for the
protection of population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity in 2005, but the concrete application of these principles has remained a challenge. In
the end, there are no simple solutions because absolute state control may lead to oppression and
instability, while military interventions by foreign countries that lack proper justification or
sanction from the international community may harm international peace and human rights as
well.
Evolving norms and challenges in justifying humanitarian interventions
New norms in humanitarian intervention help present several challenges in achieving
equilibrium between the requirements of global security and sovereignty of states. The idea that
state sovereignty precludes entanglement in a state‘s internal affairs has become less absolute in
3
the last few decades and new standards have been established under which interventions are
possible, one of them being genocide. The question of how much intervention is justified
continues to be a source of debate, with organizations such as NATO being able to decide on the
execution of military operations in the name of humanitarianism, but this ultimately threatens
sovereignty for small states. Skeptics have an opinion that the decline of sovereignty standards
can be used by great powers as a cover for geopolitical pursuits in the name of humanism. For
example, the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 was charged with
exceeding its UN mandate of preventing humanitarian operations. The latter was followed by the
creation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which attempted at defining benchmarks through
which interventions could be legitimized, but still has issues with state‘s implementation. Even
though some critics have pointed to its lack of implementation, R2P is still a representative and a
developing norm that stresses human rights against raw sovereignty. However, suggestions to
grant outsiders a ‗RT2P‘ or the responsibility to rebuild societies in conflict generate additional
questions because the praxis of the past fifty-years has been selective, inconsistent and has
yielded mixed results. Lacking consensus, states still have to decide on acceptable levels
justifying violations of an elementary norm of interstate relations.
Historical Evolution of Humanitarian Intervention Concept
Post-WWII shift towards human rights protection globally
The post war world saw a new horizon of international law developments focusing on
human rights. The genocide exercised during the war especially the holocaust led nations of the
world to act in a bid to prevent such occurrences and the rights that people should enjoy as
human beings. The United Nations Charter was signed in 1945 by 50 member states, which
adopted the principles of nondiscrimination and the promotion of rights. This formed the basis of
4
the UDHR enacted 3years later in 1948 as the first United Nations document on human rights
which outlined the 30 articles of civil, political, and economic social and cultural rights which
should be protected globally. At the same time, the International Military Tribunals in
Nuremberg and Tokyo put on trial and punished leaders for war crimes, genocide, and
aggression, as well as defining the need for punishment of individuals guilty of massive human
rights violations and the extension of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Other systems for
human rights protection emerged gradually with the creation of the European, Inter-American
and the African institutions of human rights court and commission or convention in the 1940s
and 1960s.An increase in the number of international human rights NGOs also assisted in the
establishment of human rights records and the quest for justice for the oppressed worldwide.
Although the belief in the legitimacy of human rights was steadily growing as an international
phenomenon, the process of postwar prosecution and enforcement of human rights, especially in
the first few decades, proved to be sluggish. However, the rising passion of national governments
and the global society in demanding rights protection has led to more enhancements over the
next generations due to other treaties, monitoring mechanisms and the international criminal
justice processes. Even though that is the case, there is much work to be done to achieve human
rights norms and standards in practice for everyone.
Cold War era limitations on intervention practices
The Cold War era was characterized by a check and balance or a measure that limited the
superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union‘s interference in other nations‘ affairs to
relative power sharing while at the same time avoiding an open armed conflict that could prompt
a nuclear war which was looming in the background, the trauma of the Second World War was
still fresh. Instead, two superpowers preferred the proxy wars, covert operations, and political
5
subversion as the strategies that would reveal the interest of another rather than endanger their
own troops for the sake of the balance. The principle which states that no territorial shields can
be used to protect any nation‘s citizenship was also not violated because both parties wanted to
avoid offending the other. Any direct intervention was rejected firmly through diplomatic and
publicity level even though both remained active in concealed ways. Instances such as the
invasion of Hungary in 1956 by Soviets to quash an insurrection or the CIA sponsored overthrow
of the leftist Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 remained subtle and could not be traced back to the
patron state. To intervene in civil wars, more often than not, there was the need to do so covertly
and without any official engagement with the parties to the conflict. These contributed in
lowering the chances of the escalations that may occur due to direct confrontations between
super powers. It also restricted public relation risks in other parts of world and as a result
affected efficiency of exclusivity in some of the markets. The leaders of the states realized during
early Cold War of crises such as the Korean War that the global audience was no longer
welcoming of the interference of the military. They sometimes had problems controlling their
local partners, and this was especially a hurdle in removing regimes. Hence diffuse commitments
also contributed to opposition domestically by providing liberalism in liberal democracies
including America. In a sense, Cold War leaders had to be cautious and covert in their assertive
international policies so as not to provoke a retaliatory nuclear threat from peers or undergo
unorganized regime changes with unpredictable outcomes. This resulted in ambiguous
resolutions of a conflict, fairly unsatisfactory solutions and complex accommodations which in
turn, provoked new conflicts that did not address original political clashes in a stable manner.
There were some positive outcomes of the limitations on direct intervention but it also provided
leaders with lethal delusions of grandeur of being able to control intricate local struggles with the
6
use of covert instruments without the cost of generating negative repercussions of prolonged
instability. This climate of risk concealment by the superpowers was birthed by the strict
restrictions with regard to the relations that surrounded foreign interjection within the bipolar
cold war setting.
Post-Cold War surge in humanitarian intervention operations
Cold war ended a big factor that used to hinder operations for humanitarian intervention
as situations escalated into direct confrontation of the major world powers prevented many
humanitarian operations from happening in the first place in most humanitarian crises throughout
the world. With that constraint removed the 1990s witnessed a number of humanitarian military
interventions authorised either by the UN or by individual regional coalitions or by individual
powers acting on their own initiative mainly in the form of NATO. Some past examples are,
intervention in northern Iraq in 1991 with aim to establish a safe zone for Kurds, in Somalia in
1992 as a United Nations authorized humanitarian mission which later turned into a very costly
United States mission of nation building and finally, in former Yugoslavia from 1992-1995:
humanitarian intervention to support peace plans, and military force by NATO against Bosnian
Serbs and Serbia. The increase in the use of the term was made possible by the existence of more
international agreement in a unipolar international system where America as the only super
power of the west had a vested interest in the protection of democracy, human rights, and
humanitarianism as well as other western countries. It also signified the emerging culture of the
‗responsibility to protect‘ or, the idea that other nations, organizations, or the international
community should intervene in cases where a country‘s government cannot or will not protect its
people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or other forms of mass atrocities. However,
many interventionist initiatives yielded only inconclusive impacts and fostered ‗mission creep‘ to
7
encompass much more political and nation-building agendas in addition to the original
humanitarian goals alongside military, financial, and human expenses for the intervening powers
as well as further domestic turmoil for the target countries subsequently triggered extensive
debates on the effectiveness and side-effects of humanitarian interventions. This led to reluctance
for a military intervention for humanitarian goals in subsequent conflicts such as Rwanda in
1994 with the lessons learnt from the previous difficult campaigns resulting in a policy of non-
interference despite appalling human rights abuses on vulnerable groups of people. In the end,
the 1990s rise stemmed from the spirit of the international actors‘ benevolence or their
obligations to protect the stateless, the oppressed, and the aggrieved, and their understanding of
cost, their ability to achieve the desired political outcomes in target states, and the possibility that
interventions might make things worse rather than better.
Legal Framework for Humanitarian Interventions
UN Charter provisions on use of force
UN Charter outlines some of the principles of international law regarding the threat and
use of force in article 2(4) and the United Nations Charter Chapter VII aiming at preventing
aggression between states. Annex to the Charter of the United Nations states that ―no state shall
threaten or use force against the territorial integrity of other states or against their political
independence.‖ However, there are two exceptions allowing states to use force legally under the
charter: self-help or collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and armed force
sanctioned by UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. In accordance with the
article 51 of the Charter, states have a right of individual or collective self-defense in case of an
armed attack. This means that states may be able to use proportional force in order to defend
itself against an armed attack until the United Nations Security Council has taken measures or
8
actions to restore international peace and security. Chapter VII enunciates the capacity of the
Security Council to decide situations that constitute threats to international peace, breach of
peace or act of aggression under Article 39 and to coerce the use of force in form of economic
measures under Article 41 or use of force under Article 42 to restore or maintain international
peace and security. Measures such as these can only be undertaken with nine affirmative votes of
which the permanent members of the Security Council must vote in the affirmative. Some
questions have been raised whether anticipatory or preemptive self-defense is allowed since the
Charter has indicated that it is allowed if an armed attack has already taken place but not before.
There is also some dispute on the legal regimes for humanitarian intervention without the
authorization of the Security Council. The UN Charter formed a collective security system to
limit use of force individually with the Security Council having exclusive power to authorize
force in response to threats and breaches of peace. But on the same note, the voting power
conferred to the P5 enables them to exercise a veto power on resolutions that are unfavorable to
their respective nations. In general, the Charter has not eradicated aggression among states but
only formalized the process of exercising international force.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine development
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) policy was adopted in 2001 after a commission
formed by the Canadian government in reaction to the international inaction in Rwanda, Bosnia,
and Kosovo in the 1990s; according to this policy, sovereignty right is not an inviolable right, but
if a population is suffering from war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing or
genocide, the sovereign state cannot prevent or halt it or is unable They included the ICISS
report of 2001, which defined and promoted the idea of the responsibility to protect, and called
for the international community to act on its own if necessary to prevent mass atrocities; Kofi
9
Annan‘s question about what the UN was for as he contemplated the failure to halt genocide in
Rwanda; and the activism of middle power states, NGOs and academic institutions through
reports, campaigns and global meetings. It is seen that the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome
document was historic as it adopted R2P and called upon states to cooperate through the UNSC
and take timely diplomatic and peaceful actions if national authorities are unable or unwilling to
protect their people; the subsequent annual UN resolutions have reiterated this commitment and
stressed the need to enhance the implementation of R2P. From 2009 to 2011, IRL and IACC
expanded the concept and institutionalization of R2P, and reports provided further detail on how
to implement R2P while outlining roles for regional/subregional organizations and civil society
in operationalizing the packages of preventive assistance measures and reactive crisis responses
if prevention fails. The first successful and recognized ‗humanitarian intervention‘ guided with
the approval of the UN Security Council under the R2P doctrine was the military operation in
Libya in 2011 when the government launched attacks on civilians with threats of mass atrocity
crimes. Nevertheless, controversies arose concerning whether NATO-led intervention went
beyond the protective civilians and the UN failed to plan Libya‘s post-intervention; these
tensions have led the SC to be more prudent in endorsing R2P cases with the use of force. Syrian
war continued to be observed by the international community as paralyzed and passive even with
genocide taking place. It is challenging and polemical to practice R2P and the extent to which
timely interventions can be deployed under the doctrine with regard to the broader geopolitical
realities in the UN Security Council.
International Criminal Court's role in accountability
The ICC carries a significant responsibility in providing justice for the criminal acts of
individuals responsible for the most heinous of crimes namely genocide, war crimes, crimes
10
against humanity and the crime of aggression; the court has been functional since 2002 and
investigates situations and cases in countries worldwide where the national systems have failed
to do so. Nonetheless, the ICC has not fully escaped the problem of impunity and it remains
largely constrained in conducting investigation and prosecution for the various reasons including
limited capacity and geographical jurisdiction because of its treaty-based nature that relies on the
consent of the state parties; and coercive powers of some of the members of the UN Security
Council, such as the US, Russia and China that are non-signatory or non-compliant to the Rome
Statute creating political barriers against However, civil society organizations globally fervently
support accountability through the ICC demanding the respective member states to execute their
legal obligation for the apprehension of the indicted suspects and for the production of necessary
evidences; these organizations likewise engage in sensitization on rights of the victims to seek
justice as well as preventive public education not permit further commission of the crimes.
Going forward, the ICC needs to strengthen partnerships with the regional bodies like the
African Union and the European Union to be able to conduct appropriate and culturally sensitive
investigations in addition to improving its prosecution techniques to collect concrete evidence
The mounting political hostility has diluted the ICC‘s autonomy in recent years, which threatens
its long-term capacity to prevent international wrongs; however, many regard it as an
irreplaceable institution as the court of last resort when domestic courts are unwilling
Ethical Considerations in Intervention Decision-Making
Just war theory applied to humanitarian crises
It is important to note there is a branch in intellectual property that deals with the
conditions under which war is allowed and this is referred to as just war theory. Some general
thoughts about the application of research methods when studying humanitarian crises including
11
genocide are the following. First of all, are there enough reasons to militarily intervene? Getting
ethical justification for mass atrocities and violation of human rights may be moral. But it is not
enough to focus on the intention, it is also important to review the intent of intervention – can it
really be to save the innocent people, or are there some other political agendas? The second
question one should ask is, who can interfere in such situations? The United Nations aimed at
handling threats to international peace; however, it is powerless in the enforcement of its
decisions and is fragmented if its members do not consent. Sometimes, regional organizations or
individual states may undertake an operation unilaterally, which will raise issues of legal
legitimacy. The third question one should ask is, is it reasonable to assume that military
intervention would be efficient enough to stop the acts of oppression and would bring more
benefit than harm? Suffering in large numbers persists not only before and during the
humanitarian interventions as evidenced by Kosovo, Libya, and Syria but also after the
interventions. The threat of destabilization and civilian losses must be avoided at any cost. Last,
only war should be the option to be taken when all the negotiations such as diplomacy and
economic measure have been exhausted. The evaluation these concerns entails ethical
consideration and realities of the ground in relation to these matters. Vexible most of the time
occurs between the societies and between countries. Thus, there are no clear solutions, for in
every choice, the lives of the innocents are at risk and the costs and uncertainties of armed
conflict should never be underestimated. Reasonable people can discuss these contentious quid
pro quos in good faith, but the cold numbers always reflect people who are at stake.
Balancing national interests with moral imperatives
As national governments make their decisions about the directions of their foreign
policies, they are caught between the horns of the practical policy-making questions of their
12
countries‘ interests, and the norms of the rights and wrongs of others states and their peoples. On
one side, leaders have to defend their own interests, countries‘ security, economic well-being,
territories and other vital needs of the population. However, moral need or demand is often
presented in a way that asks nations to sacrifice or do things which do not have a positive utility
in terms of ‗national interest‘. For instance, donating for development assistance for the least
developed countries might not be seen as having any tangible ‗national interest‘ value but it is
morally right. Often, it is important to note that the clash of interests and moralities is
experienced across different foreign policy topics such as climate change, rules governing world
trade, peacekeeping missions, response to genocide, among others. There are arguments
for/against it to some extent, as some idealists may want more moral crusading, while others
more grounded may advise against it. Another approach is to adopt the liberal interpretation of
the concept of enlightened self-interest where the interests of each country are positively
associated with the global public goods and common values that would be in the interest of
everybody. But, there are still many cases that governments have to make choices where the
moral thing to do is to do something that does not benefit anyone back home. Public opinion also
pulls leaders in two directions – people want their leaders to defend noble ideals but also expect
them to focus on national issues. It is important to note that there are lots of theoretical
approaches which have been suggested by the FP scholars to address these kinds of challenges,
but there are no clear solutions. Whereas the question of whether interests or morals should be
prioritized is not easy to answer, the global battle between these two concepts basically involves
decision-making that entails the comparison of powers. Managers must convince the public that
they are ready to sacrifice the homeland‘s independence in order to avoid being occupied by
another country or to sacrifice their own lives to bring the country‘s principles into practice, as
13
the public is divided between isolationism and idealism. All boils down to thinking twice on the
numerous ethical and pragmatic issues at play in determining policy that involves moral issues in
international relations and at the same time, is able to safeguard the interests of a particular
country and its people.
Media influence on public opinion and intervention
Media, be it news or social media, movies and television shows, refers to the significant
way in which the population is informed and shaped to think about certain topics and how to
approach them; through the media, the population is given the direction to the discourse of
certain issues, the structure of arguments, the introduction of new concepts or perspectives, and
the key points and facts to consider when arriving at certain conclusions; the topics and voices
that are featured, This is because, by using techniques such as selective reporting, minutes of
emotions, and repetition of key messages, the media can help certain ideological positions
become natural while certain other positions are excluded, regardless of their truthfulness; it
helps in manipulation of public opinion by political and corporate entities in order to garner
support or opposition for certain policies, interventions, and opinions, which is seen in any media
system from news channels like CNN or Fox to Netflix dramas and On its positive side, media
enlightens people, brings sets up bridges to link people who have previously had nothing to do
with each other, and mobilizes support for the side of right in the fight for reforms but on its
negative side, it tends to distort issues and throw fuel on the fire, to put up a straw man and then
knock it down, and herd readers into positions on issues that are remote from their own
experience and of which they At the same time the positive and negative impact of the media on
shaping public opinion is evident, we should not fall into the trap of blind faith in the media for
providing the correct narrative and framing , or rely only on media sources of one ideological
14
bent as none is perfect and all have their biases; instead we need to consume from a variety of
sources and make our own decisions based on the information available to us firsthand .
Operational Challenges of Humanitarian Interventions
Coordinating multinational forces for effective crisis response
The idea of leading multinational forces with the participation of military formations
from several countries and branches raises practical concerns of command and control when
creating a crisis-response force; one of the challenges that arise with multinational forces is the
issue of the chain of command and the authorities vested in force commanders that differ
depending on domestic legislation in force in different countries thus there must be clear
guidance provided on the roles and responsibilities of force commanders to avoid confusion and
conflicting orders in a high Also, the command and control of communications regarding the
multinational forces using different languages and equipment is essential for sharing the
situational awareness and for delivering the massive amount of information as quickly as
possible to the joint task force because if anybody uses the translator or English only as the
primary language, it is likely to result in critical time lag or misunderstandings that potentially
endanger missions and lives. Besides, there is nothing that fosters understanding and camaraderie
between multinational military forces more than having common exercises, and cross training so
that before a crisis strikes, these people are willing to work together rather than having to be
introduced to their comrades in battle and having to be trained to coordinate on the fly before
going to war. In the long run, the benefits of integrating nation‘s military forces for crisis
response include sharing of resources and issues where certain cost or risk is shifted to other
nations, there remains inherent unity of command and effort which leaders have to navigate
through often through diplomatic discussions regarding acceptable rules of engagement; and
15
clear definition of the command authorities lest they end up issuing out conflicting orders;
compatible and back up communication systems, and constant building of relationships between
Multinational military
Navigating complex local dynamics in conflict zones
To work in conflict areas it is useful to know the culture and adapt the approach and the
strategy which implies sometimes shifting the policy and trying to gain trust. Practitioners
working with conflict affected communities have to come with an attitude of teach ability to
understand the conflict stories, conflict assets and the conflict narratives that define conflict
interests and conflict power interests. Coming into a situation with a set of assumptions only
thwarts or hampers chances of collaboration and meaningful improvement. The priorities and
opportunities for outside actors to empower communities are dynamic in conflict-affected
settings, thus attentiveness and flexible programming/policymaking. This is a very important
factor which may sound irrelevant, but it is very crucial: Trust is important and it builds over
time. Local cultures have witnessed numerous outside intercessors assure them of change but we
destabilize such communities due to ignorance, self-interested behavior or fanning of ethnicity
contacts. Good will by humanitarian and development actors, researchers or peace workers may
engender suspicion where such research initiatives are undertaken without proper inclusiveness
and devolving of adequate power to cultivate and set agendas and processes. However, conflict
affected communities also desire to seek for mechanisms that can help them to avoid
continuation of violence and insecurity, which heavily erode health, economic, human and social
capital. It is work in networking within the different strata of the communities in order to be able
to assess the distinct needs and the different perceptive of a given community as well as the
history that defines the grievances and opportunities, power relations and threats that perpetuate
16
divisions and conflicts. Creating long-lasting cooperation means defining common concerns with
the various community members and including them in the processes of developing policies and
programs meant to assist them; it also means gaining support across the social structure based on
the common interest in stability and the absence of social discord. This requires acknowledging
diversity within the terms ‗community‘, this is in terms of gender, ethnic, religious, economic
and ideological differences that define views and requirements. This intervening need to look at
externalities when it comes to these three diverse groups.
Balancing short-term relief with long-term stability goals
When extending security assistance internationally, states and organizations can
experience a difficult choice between meeting at the scene audiences and crises and investing in
sustainable reforms that would not allow those crises to happen or recur despite the fact the both
types more or less require large-scale funding as evidenced by over 100 billion dollars spent
annually on peacekeeping, stabilization, and relief activities. Short-term measures invariably
focus on saving lives through food aid, provision of shelter, health services, and protection of
persons affected by conflict or disaster but if the underlying causes of insecurity and fragility are
not addressed the crisis is easily reignited, as evidenced by countries in constant conflict like the
Democratic Republic of Congo or recurrent natural disasters in Haiti therefore prioritizing a mid
to long-term strategy of coping with conflict and disaster by investing in human and institutional
capital, However, institution building and systems change which are the key approaches of the
aid architecture take time and can take anything from years to decades to demonstrate minimal
results as compared to the high profile relief delivery also they entail working comprehensively
with local actors who may not have the same interests as that of the donors. Therefore, the
international assistance providers are always in a vigorous process of balancing between
17
humanitarian and developmental objectives along a number of axes like relevance and
effectiveness, prominence and endurance, external intervention and local capacity, immediate
needs and long-term capabilities.
Post-Intervention Reconstruction and State-Building Efforts
Transitioning from military intervention to civilian administration
There is always a post-conflict phase that follows most military interventions, which is
the period of restoration of the political and civil order and governance in the affected country,
and this remains one of the most sensitive stages in the whole process of ending a conflict and
should be well handled to avoid the resurgence of the conflict or other related problems. The
intervening military power should therefore aim at creating security, rebuilding and developing
infrastructures, and putting in place basic social amenities in the target society to ensure that
when the intervention is complete, there are no issues of confusion, chaos, or lack of structures to
enable a successful pull out and transfer of power. At the same time, measures such as free
elections, constitutional watchdogs, and judicial systems should be backed to ensure that the
local civilians have authority over themselves. However, success is not guaranteed as it highly
depends on the uninhibited withdrawal and supportive role of the intervening military power as
they prepare, resource, and empower the civilian leadership. For instance, after NATO‘s actions
in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 under Operation Joint Endeavor, much effort was devoted to
establishing a stable train and equip program to create functioning police and security
infrastructure. However, there have been further eras which then posed new difficulties in the
implementation of rule of law. In Kosovo, after NATO‘s 1999 air intervention, the UN Interim
Administration Mission incrementally transferred responsibilities to the locally elected leaders in
a slow process spanning ten years before the total transfer of power through a status
18
determination. However, Kosovo has internal problems; corruption and ethnicity are some of the
problems that the country still faces. In a nutshell, literature poses the following propositions as
the most effective and any deviation from these formulas should be avoided: The intervening
powers should make it their central focus to support security and legitimacy of the local
institutions right from the onset of transition but then hand over responsibility of security to the
local actors and ownership to local institutions in a transparent exit strategy that is predicated on
clear benchmarks and timelines of transition. So, if the intervening military is too authoritative,
or pulls out too quickly without proper reforms in place, then countries indeed go back to chaos.
If political and economic root causes of conflict are not addressed before extraction, vacuum is
created and again spoilers or other extreme factions exploit those grievances. The intervening
powers encompass the responsibility to do intensive state-building and supply new civilian
offices while at the same time cautiously decentralizing power to legitimate and representative
actors who are trusted by the public.
Addressing root causes of conflicts post-intervention
The outcomes of military and humanitarian interventions are generally not satisfactory
because although violence is often stopped several causes of conflict, which lead to the
involvement of the military in the first instance, are never solved in the weak states where these
interventions happen and when the intervening forces pull out, the conflicts re-emerge and the
killings go on. One of the major reasons for this failure is that intervening powers, mainly
because of domestic political constraints and resource constraints, generally have a limited time
horizon and tend to engage in state-building and security management in the short run rather than
addressing structural roots of conflict which include governance deficits, economic
underdevelopment, ethno-sectarian cleavages, and rights abuses, and they also do not seek to
19
address long-standing political, economic and resource issues. As has been seen in experience
though, if source issues that are root causes of conflicts are not well dealt with, any given peace
is only shallow and transient. This poses a very urgent question of what to do in regards to
interventions particularly in divided societies—while non-intervention means allowing many
people to suffer and die untimely deaths, the interventionist approach demonstrated that merely
waltzing in, making the intervention, and then waltzing out without setting the process in motion
to help societies begin to deal with these sources of conflict sets the stage for future conflict and
state failure when the intervener moves out Of course, there are no simple answers; one idea
which might be worth pursuing further, which has yet to be developed systematically as an
academic concept but is often implicitly invoked in policy circles, is a notion of ‗peace building
interventions‘, designed to tackle both the symptoms and the causes of civil war through
sustained state and institution-building efforts by external actors focused across a range of
political, economic, social, and security dimensions, in order to ensure that no This is in stark
contrast to typical stabilization-centered approaches that aggravate the fragility of the states with
little regard for the underlying drivers of the issue in favor of efficiency. Of course, peace-
building interventions at scale would require huge investments and political will from the
intervening countries and international organizations along with regional actors, and achieving
such a level of civil-military cooperation and peace-building in conflict-affected countries would
be indeed very challenging and is seen through over a number of years or even decades, which is
a Herculean task. The degree of suffering as a result of civil conflicts across all the helpless
developing nations compounded by the high incidence of relapses right after politically ill-
advised interferences calls for the international community to consider new strategies of conflict
20
resolution that address the root causes if humanity‘s dream of bringing an end to these recurrent
vices is to be realized.
Fostering local ownership in rebuilding process
As for the necessity of the enhancement of local ownership it can be stated that it is
imperative to achieve the goals of the reconstruction in the countries affected by the conflict in
order to promote the process of development. In cases where external factors such as multilateral
institutions or foreign governments undertake to lead post-war reconstruction without adequate
involvement of the domestic population, it is possible for such initiatives to be perceived as
externally imposed or even neo-colonial, thus contributing to perceptions of legitimacy and
resulting in potential future outbreaks of conflict or breakdowns in stable post-war peace. What
should be done is the rebuilding process should be owned and led by people on the ground with a
stake on seeing their societies improve. They include: strengthening political transition and
governance to allow human representation and involvement which is the marginalized groups in
society, reforming and reconstructing the core governmental capacities in a way that engages the
human population, and creating assistance programs that are in harmony with the context and
need of the community. Non-governmental organizations, groups advocating for women,
religious institution, youths, the private sector, and other interested parties should be involved in
the formulation of the rebuilding strategies and programs. Without their cooperation and support,
the project would not be complete. For example, devolving some responsibilities for decision
making and providing public services to subnational or community levels can increase
accountability to citizen demands and preferences. Publicity in the process and the information
released to the public also helps in maintaining transparency and expectations. However, the
concept of local ownership is not equal to the exclusion of foreign professionals and equipment
21
which are always helpful. The challenge is to achieve the right balance – delegating the
leadership role to the local actors on the ground while harnessing external drivers to support
where necessary but not to overtake and reconstruct where no capacity is required, while at the
same time, promoting and protecting human rights and democratic values as the structural
bedrock. It requires a long time and involves consistent effort coming from both local actors and
their external counterparts in a period that spans over a decade or more in many conflicted-
affected nations. When properly announced based on the principles of democratic
decentralisation and actual local ownership, the social contract can be mutually rebuilt in an
inclusive way to protect all the groups and ensure that there are no further splits that would
endanger the possibility of resilience.
Future Trends in Humanitarian Intervention Practices
Technological advancements reshaping intervention capabilities and strategies
The dynamic technological environment that has characterized the last few decades has
resulted in transformative changes in the manner in which interventions as well as crisis response
strategies are being designed and implemented, thus offering new possibilities that are in the
process of recasting this important work. New technologies, similarly, allow continuous data
collection and evaluation to help intervention groups monitor new situations and threats in
communities as well as know when new triggers might emerge and where the resources need to
be proactively channeled. This is made more effective by use of GPS, advanced mobile
technology as well as state of the art computer modeling that aid in the preparation and
mobilization of manpower. When disasters do occur, clear imaging of satellites helps in faster
assessment of damages and thus, adjust their operation; drones offer the same rapid aerial views
of the devastated areas in order to look for survivors easily. AI is admitted in prediction models
22
to predict the direction and consequence of hurricanes and floods with more accuracy that
effectively allows more time to warn the citizens to flee. It is revolutionizing the way
individuals, organizations, and communities interact with each other and respond to disasters and
emergencies as well as how agencies can observe, track, and respond to the needs and concerns
of the target groups in the age of social media. Other tools like the solar panels and water filters
that are relatively cheaper are also useful in increasing an individual‘s readiness in the
occurrence of any disaster. Mobile learning application enables the local stakeholders to practice
on hardness techniques of the areas of weaknesses noted in the respective region. Despite the
continued exigent need for human input, technology is inevitably improving situational
awareness, resource management, impact estimates and precision of focused countermeasures –
enabling intervention teams to execute their high-stakes, low-structural predictability tasks faster
and more successfully to preserve human lives. However, it can be concluded that there is still a
need for constant caution when it comes to risks related to privacy, disinformation, and access; it
seems that technology will progress even more in the future in order to increase the efficiency of
crises prevention, preparation, and management.
Climate change impacts on humanitarian crisis frequency
The effects of climate change mean that extreme weather events are becoming more
common across the globe, resulting in more frequent humanitarian crises as people are unable to
manage the consequences of storms, floods, droughts and heat waves etc. For instance, global
warming through factors such as lifted sea levels and frequent stronger hurricanes is a real and
present danger especially to residents in coastal regions as large-scale evacuations and
displacement occur when devastating floods in areas that never prepared for such extreme shifts
in geography. In the same way, new and longer heat waves are having direct positive impacts
23
with people‘s lives, specifically with regard to life expectancies of the elderly or those who
cannot afford to buy air conditioning or healthcare or other means to protect them. They also
cause humanitarian disasters through crop failures and food deficits by enhancing prolonged
droughts which leads to malnutrition and starvation which are major challenges that affected
communities are unable to adequately combat without support. All the above worsening climate
change consequences erode infrastructure, annihilate livelihoods, displace populations, rip apart
local economy and food security, increase poverty, inequality, and render the idea of stability a
pipe dream to affected communities. When an impoverished and violent community does not
receive support and protection from the outside world, climate change humanitarian crises can
turn into even worse human calamities fraught with conflict, social discord, and further human
loss. For instance climate change effects played a role in sparking social disorder in Syria before
the civil war. The current humanitarian system does not have the capacity to respond to the rate
and intensity of climate disasters, and the developing countries are not prepared for disaster risks,
emergency alerts, and prompt response mechanisms. Climate change compounds frequency of
humanitarian crisis situations in the world, which puts a new impossible pressure over
humanitarian response assets. The end is overstressed aid systems which are unable to cope with
increasingly expanding needs as well as growing number of new disasters stimulated by climate
change globally.
Shifting global power dynamics affecting intervention decisions
The dynamics of global politics in the 21st century are different than in the 1990s; due to
a shift in global power, decisions about humanitarian and military intervention depend not only
on the consideration of how many people will die if action is not taken but on such
considerations as interests, alliances, values, and spheres of influence that were not a concern in
24
the past. For instance, China‘s non-interference policy which partly ensued from its colonization
experience contradicts the liberal interventionism of the west anchored on human rights berea,
thus making it possible for the UN Security Council to still encounter vetoes or hindrances in the
authorization of interferences that would easily have passed decades ago due to agreement in
terms of political ideologies among the P5 members. Also, the effect of maintaining alliances is
critical as one power rises, the other forms countermeasures; for instance, how China‘s
relationship with Russia on interventions depends on the US-European partnership. Public
opinion also plays a more significant role in the multi-polar world as governments adapt the
interventions to their domestic audiences and, therefore, geostrategic than appealing to the
humanitarian missions as the main agenda. International organizations such as the African Union
and the Arab League, for instance, have become less receptive to dictates from Western capitals
and, therefore, have contributed towards the emergence of a considerably more challenging
process of arriving at the unified decisions on intervention among the global and local powers.
Finally, as the patterns of distribution of material capabilities in terms of hard security and
economy evolves in the twenty- first century between the existing and rising states, intervention
choices represent a multiplicity of a set of potential conflicting values as opposed to the post-
Cold War American unilateralism. Moreover, as the influence is diffused further, the questions
like which set of values, whose alliances, and what regional interest should define the action in
foreign crises will persistently continue to engage the global governance institutions and
frameworks.
25
Conclusion
Need for clearer international guidelines on humanitarian interventions
The absence of definitive and universally recognized principles on which humanitarian
interventions must base their actions as well as when and how to do so has created confusion in
the international community‘s response to humanitarian crises and charges that military
interventions are selective and are carried out for political, rather than humanitarian, purposes.
To date, there is no internationally shared understanding of clear objective indicators and
procedures for determining when in the international community should use force or when there
should be sanctions for human rights violations, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. It is necessary to establish clear understanding regarding the specific levels, both
quantitative and qualitative, of abuses that are acceptable, as well as the time frame during which
they can take place in order to use diplomatic pressure and threats, followed by gradual
escalation to sanctions and ultimatums, and then preparations for possibly armed intervention as
the final step. Holding clear tests is necessary for evaluating if all non-military options have been
tried and if intervention would add more good than bad to the state. Principles should include the
specification of limited and well-defined scope and aims that primarily involve the safeguarding
of endangered populations; in addition to terms and measures for monitoring and guaranteeing
that interventions are promptly terminated as soon as it is possible after the objectives are
reached. Identifying the right bodies and clear criteria for authorization of humanitarian
intervention under international law share the same call which is the delineation of authority
while at the same time ensuring that it does not become paralyzed by permanent members of the
UN Security Council whenever their interests are not at risk. Regional organizations require a
framework through which they can exercise leadership in the organization of interventions
26
whenever their vicinity is thrown into a state of chaos by humanitarian crises. It also means that
protocols for interaction between all the parties concerned during multiple, large-scale operations
should also be developed. As nationalism intensifies, it is necessary to define the specific
requirements of armed conflicts, thus gaining the support of the population of a particular
country In this regard, as well as global public opinion, to differentiate between humanitarian
interventions and military escapades.
Importance of preventive diplomacy in averting humanitarian crises
The concept of preventive diplomacy is one of the most crucial ones for sustaining peace
and avoiding humanitarian disasters that might ensue from different factors – massacre,
terrorism, global change consequences, natural disasters, or even a pandemic that has taken the
entire world. Activities used to rule out conflict possibility include; they include reporting
mechanisms that are done early, when there is communication and negotiations between those
that may become enemies, encouragement to cooperate, activities leading to trust, and activities
that promote economic interdependence. For the regional organizations, the UN, powerful states,
or maybe non-state actors, effective preventive diplomacy involves investing in early warning
and the means to address them and the lines of communication open in peacetime so that they
can be used to prevent escalation in case of crises. Aimed at avoiding wars and humanitarian
emergencies, it could be far less expensive and ethically questionable than managing fully-
fledged crises or wars, which is why policymakers should acknowledge preventive diplomacy
and its potential as underutilized. Maintaining peace also requires long-term prevention or
mitigation of causes of potential conflicts including prejudice, poor leadership, and other socio-
economic demands of deprived groups by supporting popular civil structures and governance
changes for greater people‘s engagement. The commitment of efforts aimed at managing acute
27
conflicts with an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution with additional rewards for
cooperation and incentives for the formation of long-term positive changes in social, economic,
and political relations that enhance equal security and opportunities for all parties can prevent
humanitarian crisis due to violent conflict.
Balancing sovereignty concerns with global responsibility to protect
The principle of sovereignty that found its place in the UN Charter implies that individual
states have complete control over their internal affairs, and no other state or international
organization has a right to interfere with it. Yet, with the advent of mass atrocities and genocide
in Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s for instance, the world came up with the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) doctrine which states that sovereignty is not a privilege but a duty and that if a
state cannot or is unable to protect its people or is killing them then there is a right of the
international community to intervene including through force. These two principles are hard to
balance for given the fact that states would not want to support an R2P intervention that would
encroach on its sovereignty while at the same time there are continuous calls for intervention
under R2P especially in humanitarian crises. Syria is a vivid example: the Syrian regime‘s
cruelty prompted calls for intervention for humanitarian purposes, yet, due to geopolitical
concerns and concerns for state sovereignty, a military intervention based on the UN Security
Council decisions could not be authorized. R2P has not been effectively practiced because there
is no political will, it is feared to be used to advance the cause of regime change, and there is no
capacity to attend to the peace-building needs of failing states after coups. Thus, as the tension
between sovereignty and R2P remains, improving individual warning systems with more
elaborate criteria for the justification of an intervention, guaranteeing local involvement and
support, and increasing the efficiency of assistance provided to post-conflict states may alleviate
28
concerns of both advocates and opponents and ultimately provide more effective protection for
vulnerable populations in the future.
