While discussing humanitarian intervention in Lybia, I would like to consider some fundamentals of the term. First of all, there is a need to point out what humanitarian intervention is. “The term humanitarian intervention encompasses a wide range of possible actions—including economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts—and involves military force only in the most extreme cases” (Palmer par. 5). In other words, one can make a conclusion that the so-called humanitarian intervention is considered to be war. In my opinion, the term should be changed, as its meaning seems to be quite strange and doesn’t reflect the essence of the matter.
We will write a custom Essay on Humanitarian Intervention in Libya Aspects specifically for you
301 certified writers online
When speaking about humanitarian intervention in Lybia, it is necessary to point out that an International law does not support the kind of intervention, which is related to military operations. In other words, it is obvious that the so-called humanitarian intervention is based on international war; so, does anybody can state that involving international war is legal? I think the answer is evident.
Valentino is of the opinion that “Yet even if the intervention does ultimately give birth to a stable and prosperous democracy, this outcome will not prove that intervention was the right choice in Libya or that similar interventions should be
attempted elsewhere” (p. 60). Taking into account the events, which took place in Lybia, one can think not only about the moral price but also about political and economic consequences. So, in my opinion, the so-called humanitarian intervention is mostly associated with mass-destruction weapons. One is to keep in mind that the original purpose of humanitarian intervention is to save lives. There must be created numerous public health programs; one of the key purposes of the kind of intervention is to help victims of various disasters. So, can one state that humanitarian intervention in Lybia had the corresponding consequences?
According to International Law, the territorial integrity and political independence of any country can not be violated. When speaking about the legality of humanitarian intervention, it is necessary to point out that there are two arguments, which are related to legitimacy. Thus, “The first is based on the right to self-defence and concerns unilateral action, the second invokes chapter VII of the UN charter and applies to multilateral action (or action authorized by the UN security council)” (Vogel par. 7).
So, the above-mentioned affirmation is considered to be one more example of NATO’s illegal actions. I suppose that everybody can agree that the recent intervention in Lybia can not be regarded as a humanitarian. In my opinion, violent and bloody “help” seems to be not humanitarian, but barbaric. Moreover, one is to keep in mind that it is a national interest, which is of primary importance. In other words, human security is considered to be the main purpose of humanitarian intervention.
One can state that violence can be used to defend the weak; however, in my opinion, this idea is considered to be really absurd. People use the weapon to destroy…in what way war can improve the economy, politics, and social life? To be honest, I have no answer, have you?
Humanitarian intervention means no war; humanitarian intervention seems to bring the recovery of the state. So, when analyzing the consequences of human intervention in Lybia, one can make a conclusion that the kind of help can not be regarded as a legal and moral concept, but as an instrument of foreign intervention to achieve certain hidden aims.
Palmer, Alex. Beyond Humanitarian Intervention, 2012. Web.
Valentino, Benjamin. The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention, 2012. Web.
Vogel, Tobias. The Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, 2008. Web.