Military Interventions Arguing Against

MilitaryInterventions: Arguing Against

UniversityAffiliation

Whetheror not the authorities of one nation can forcefully intervene inanother state’s inability to tackle high levels of systematicviolation of human rights committed by its authorities still remainsan issue of contestation in international and humanitarian law. Themanagement of contemporary international relations among countrieshas become a critical issue particularly after the North AtlanticTreaty Organization’s (NATO) militaristic interventions in Kosovo.Critics of this intervention explain that a greater fraction of Asiancountries was opposed to the endorsement of the use of force by NATOagainst the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Robert, 1999). Being anissue of foreign policy, humanitarian interventions, particularlyfrom the military, has been looked at as the greatest cause offundamental incapacitation of a state’s sovereignty, a matter oflife and death for a massive number of people and a radical influenceon the extents of operation both in humanitarian aid organizationsand militaristic organizations. It is of great importance to put intoconsideration the fact that the foundation of the currentinternational system heavily relies on the fact that sovereigneconomies need to enjoy the right to non-intervention and to enjoyhigh levels of freedom from the unwanted involvement of externalforces into their affairs. History has it that there is no militaryintervention that has been driven with any keenness to look into theissues of sovereign immunity. On the contrary, such interventionshave false fully made use of b the concept of protecting civiliansfrom harm as a way of demeaning the crucial issue of a state’ssovereignty. According to Demmerit (2015), the militaristicperspective of human security in which force is excessively used withthe belief that the rights of the members of these nations are thefoundations of justice and security have been opposed based on thefact that individual states have the right to enjoy their sovereigntyin protecting their people within their jurisdictions. This paperemploys the principles of the deontological theory to explain whymilitaristic interventions in foreign sovereign soils is an issueagainst the set societal norms of operation and the reasons why itmust not be allowed to continue based on the tortures people areforced to go through in their homelands in the hands of foreignforces.

Killingsin Military Interventions

Foreignmilitary activities on other soils have been historically recorded ascauses of death for very many innocent lives. In Darfur, Sudan, tensof thousands of lives have been lost since the inception ofmilitaristic interventions in 2003 (Roberts, 1999). Further, millionsof people have been left homeless through the activities of foreignarmies in their land leading to displacements. Despite this, it issaddening that despite reputable international organizations outcrying for the loss of human life, very little has been done torestore a sense of sovereignty of this economy. Further, no effortshave been made to address the issues of these interventions asthreats to international peace and security. Apart from theoccurrences in Darfur, the world still sees the continuation ofmilitary interventions in other countries. These range from Africato the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Central Eurasia. Most of theseinterventions have only left massive killings, large-scale sufferingamong human beings through torture, rape, and displacement ofcivilians from their places of dwelling (Kathman &amp Wood, 2011).

Thereis a need for taking the issue of false military interventionsseriously. The current system has seen an increase in the number ofincidences where countries use their military forces as a way ofpunishing the less developed economies. Such countries havecontinuously abused the justification for militaristic interventionsbased on the actions of their military forces which have gone a longway in blurring the drawing line between the known legitimateexceptions to what may be looked at as the principle ofnonintervention and the subversion of the principle of reason upheldby nations as a way of favoring their self-interests. As a matter offact, the world has remained silent about the continued militaryattacks on foreign soils particularly on developing and third worldeconomies (Alder-Nissen &amp Paulitto, 2014). This has increased thescope of allowance pursuit for national interests by other economieson foreign soils. As a result, the perception of onlookers to theinternational system has changed from the initial peacekeeper toextremely dangerous and violent. While the relationship betweenpolitical interests and humanitarian intervention is considered to bedelicate, the issues of military intervention and civil humanitarianinterventions are more fragile and of crucial importance.

Ifnot properly executed military and humanitarian interventionsparticularly in the less developed economies can be life wastingissue based on the fact that it exacerbates the problems it isintended to give solutions to. As a matter of fact, most of themilitaristic and humanitarian assistances in other countries areknown to feed wars. Based on the United Nations’ definition of humanitarian interventions, deployment of military forces as part ofsuch activities needs to be considered as the last resort and shouldbe a short term activity with limited interference on political andeconomic landscapes of the country under consideration (Demmeritt,2015). However, current military interventions are full of politicalinterests. For instance, in countries such as East Timor and Kosovo,the initial military interventions were evidently driven by politicalobjectives leading to long term political operations.

Moraland Legal Questions of Military Interventions

Whilemilitary interventions have occupied the speeches of influentialfigures such as popes, presidents and princes for a long time now, itis significant to critically look into the normative contexts inwhich they take place as a way of gaining the desired confidence toconfront them (Kant, 2008). Proponents of these unscrupulousinterventions have applied the normative of the post-cold war timesas a way of establishing meaning and purpose for these actions.However, critics have it that militaristic interventions act aspoison to international integration and cohesion. Further, suchinterventions go a long way in demeaning a country of its rights andduties to create their own goals and values of operation and themeans they may believe that best suite them in tackling theirproblems in ways that are legitimate.

Thereis need to put into consideration the fact that natural law isfounded on moral reasoning. For this reason, proper behavior needs tobe governed by precepts that allow the accrual of natural rights bythe virtue of people being human in nature. It must be noted thatthe persistent nature of natural law created the basis for thoughtson the use of force in a legitimate way until the time when theTreaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648 bring a halt to the ThirtyYears War (Roberts, 1999). The passing of this treaty led to thecreation of the current international system aimed at increasing thesovereign obligations of nations as a principle of ordering power. On the other hand, positive law has it that states internationalrelations among nations needs to be governed by the fact that anysovereign government has the right to rule within its borders as itfeels fit without fearing external powers and interventions. Then outrightly, current military interventions do not only go against thesovereign will of a country but also natural and positive laws.

Thereare questions on whether military interventions ate just based on thecompeting interests between individual human rights and thesovereignty of a state based on the contents of the pinnacle ofpositive international law. Kathman and Wood (2011) explain that theUnited Nation Charter does not allow for the application of militaryforce except in instances where a nation’s requires self-defense orin selected instances where the United Nation’s Security Councilauthorizes such interventions because of their nature as threats tointernational security and peace. However, scholars in this area haveargued that military interventions need not to be considered as partof the two exceptions particularly if it is meant to act against thewill of the nation being targeted. Legal studies reveal the factthat the sanctity of a nation’s sovereignty is based on theassumption, with support from the many years of experience before theTreaty of Westphalia was signed that such interventions go a long wayin increasing internal wrangles of the systems of a country whilebroadening international conflicts.

Objectionand Response

Militaryinterventions have been criticized based on the aspects of a nation’ssovereign and unitary natures. While this has occupied the species ofcivil rights’ organizations and human rights’ activists, it isimportant to note that it has remained short sighted of the positivegains of military interventions in restoring peace in war toneeconomies. Established through the enactment of the Treaty ofWestphalia of 1648, and a long time of the destructive conflictsamong the religious groups in Europe, it is not deniable that theaspect of sovereignty played a critical role in building peacefulrelationships among countries (Roberts, 1999). However, sovereigntywent a long way in creating absolutists governments. This isattributed to the fat that the philosophy of sovereignty was onlylocated in the person of the ruling agencies. For this reason, theidea that national sovereignty lies within the people of a nation isstill under contention. This notion led to the rise of romanticnationalism leading to instillation of leadership positions tohistorical politicians like Victor Emmanuel, Bismarck and Garibaldi.

Militaryinterventions are known to instill peace in their areas ofinvolvement. Such interventions are known to save thousands of livesthat would have been lost in their absence. The Rwandan genocidewould have claimed more lives if other countries would not havedeployed their armies to act. A part from this, militaryinterventions have gone a long way in stopping damages caused byterror groups in different economies. Al Shabab attacks in Somaliahave reduced because of military interventions. Further, Nigeria’sBoko Haram attacks in schools and social places were successfullyhalted by military interventions (Demmeritt, 2015).

Conclusion

Inconclusion, military interventions in foreign soils have gone a longway in causing more harm than good. As a matter of fact, suchinterventions have acted against the political will of developing andthird world economies to a greater extent. Massive deaths, torturesand rapes have been instigated as a result of these interventions.Researches in this area have indicated that these interventions goagainst most of the international laws and the will of theseeconomies.

References

Adler-Nissen,R., &amp Pouliot, V. (2014). Power in practice: Negotiating theinternational intervention in Libya. Europeanjournal of international relations,20(4),889-911.

DeMeritt,J. H. (2015). Delegating death military intervention and governmentkilling. Journalof Conflict Resolution,59(3),428-454.

Kant,I. (2008). Groundworkof the Metaphysics of Morals.Retrieved fromhttp://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf

Kathman,J. D., &amp Wood, R. M. (2011). Managing threat, cost, and incentiveto kill: The short-and long-term effects of intervention in masskillings. Journalof Conflict Resolution,55(5),735-760.

Roberts,A. (1999). NATO`s ‘Humanitarian War’over Kosovo. Survival,41(3),102-123.