The lack of global attention and response to Rwanda was unacceptable. What about the DRC, Sudan, Burma, North Korea and other countries whose population is being systematically displaced by war, political persecution, and state support for campaigns of ethnic violence? My question is whether humanitarian intervention can be used as a legitimate tool to remove regimes that conduct efforts of mass violence against its population?

I have outlined a brief synopsis on humanitarian intervention below. Subsequently, I added some information about the reasons why some support and others oppose this practice. I encourage you to read further and I look forward to the fruitful dialogue about the merits and shortcomings of humanitarian intervention.

.................................................................................................................................................

In short, humanitarian intervention is the threat or use of non/military force in response to human rights violations even though no acts of aggression have been committed against another state. Its strength is rooted in its authority to trump state sovereignty. The presumption is that the state can act as a moral agent and neglects its duty to do so when it fails to protect its population. When this occurs, someone must intervene. Who? Those who view the act as a positive component to our international system generally favor a multilateral approach.  Debate among those in support of the multilateral approach examine the logistics of the intervention in terms of answering the following questions:

 1."who should act in response to mass violence violations? A coalition like NATO, the United Nations, EU?
2. Can these actors muster up the political will and material resources to carry out the goals of the intervention effectively?
3. How to define an "effective" intervention?
4. What are the actor's motives and intentions for intervening?
5. What kind of support can be offered to strengthen civil society from within the nation-state? What are the effects of external support like resources, equipment, food, aid etc?

Whereas the Security Council must authorize humanitarian intervention in order to give the response its legal stamp, it has often taken place without authorization on many occasions: Northern Iraq (92), Kosovo (1999).

Modifications to the phrase "humanitarian intervention" have been changed through the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine in 2000. The argument shifted from having a right to intervene in the internal affairs of states, to having the responsibility to intervene and protect the citizens of another state when that state has failed to do so. Its methodology exists in a 3 step process: Prevention, Reaction, Rebuild.

Critics of humanitarian intervention are in no short supply. The charges brought up against it begin with its disappointing history. Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Iraq, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan to name a few.

Second, rarely do we know the hidden intentions behind intervening parties and the reasons why certain countries are chosen over others. What standard of moral equivalence are laid out in choosing to intervene in Kosovo over Rwanda? Others claim that the reconstruction efforts conducted during/after an intervention involve the imposition of trade constraints that debilitate a nation's right to self-determination. The development process that is chosen often benefits foreign investors rather than the nation's populace. This leads to further instability and a loss of credibility in the leadership of a country. What this argument suggests is that even if the intervention is successful in rooting out a regime that employs tactics of mass violence on its population, it is not saved by the further efforts of privatization reforms that unfairly compete with its impoverished public sector. In other wards, the means don't justify the ends.

Thirdly, is humanitarian intervention being used as a shroud to bypass norms and legal prohibition while simultaneously advancing expansionist geopolitical endeavors?

These criticisms are not given to suggest that those who hold these views condone any form of state violence. Rather, they are proposed in order to remind the world that the majority of states still support the notions of sovereign equality and norms of non-intervention.