The Pros And Cons Of A Humanitarian Intervention

1120 Words5 Pages
Humanitarian intervention is a term that is familiar to most colonialist and liberals alike before and after the colonial period. The slave trade had its positives and negatives on different individuals across the world. The pre-colonial period witnessed the emergence of humanitarian intervention mainly fuelled by the slave trade across Europe. The new practice was popularized through a couple of methods including military humanitarian intervention. Sovereign states are entities that have a single governing power which governs a particular geographical region and citizens, who are considered to be permanent residents (Shaw, 2003; Jasentuliyana, 1995). It is accepted that these states have that have power and jurisdiction over their territory can conduct business with any country they choose to without consent from any other nation since they are not dependent or subject to anyone (Wheaton, 1836). This critical review will look at whether force should be used against sovereign states for humanitarian reasons. This paper will discuss what some authors who are proponents of Intervention Theory have to say and then discuss what some authors who oppose interventions have to say on the topic. However, as the world becomes more and more connected, issues within…show more content…
The proponents of the theory see this move being necessary when human rights are violated and consider this move to be more essential than those of sovereignty, since their actions are strictly motivated by the human need (Stewart & Knaus, 2011). However, the theory has been criticized by its opponents, terming it as a false move that has not been sanctioned, and that is undertaken by a nation under the pretence of rendering humanitarian help but is only aimed at achieving ambiguous goals Chomsky,
Open Document