Why has the concept of humanitarian intervention provoked so much debate in political commentary?

Studies have shown that international organizations such as the United Nations “play an important role” in punishing human rights violators and “that seemingly symbolic resolutions of a politically motivated IO can carry tangible consequences”. Nonetheless, despite the significant efforts to monitor human rights and enforce norms and agreements, the effectiveness of the UN and other intergovernmental organizations is constrained, as they can exercise only the authority that member states delegate to them.

In response to these limitations, nongovernmental organizations have assumed an important role in promoting human rights. They have developed an array of transnational advocacy networks and strategies designed to pressure governments to modify their behaviour to conform to prevailing human rights norms and laws.

With greater openness to institutional activism in the post-Cold War era, human rights activist have pressed to strengthen enforcement mechanisms. Their efforts account in part for the establishment of UN tribunals to review gross human rights abuse, as in the cases of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the creation of the ICC. Activists are also credited with monitoring human rights situations and targeting a “spotlight” of publicity and public scrutiny on abusive practices to shame those that violate human rights into changing their behaviour.

While some individuals remain sceptical of claims that we all have transcendent moral obligations to humanity as a whole, others believe that everyone, by virtue of being human, has certain inherent and inalienable rights that warrant international protection. Challenging the realist premise that human rights are at odds with national interest, Executive Director of Amnesty International William Schulz laments that “What they seem rarely to garner is that in far more cases than they will allow, defending human rights is a prerequisite to protecting that interest”. Human rights buttress political and economic freedom, “which in turn tends to bring international trade and prosperity. And governments that treat their own people with tolerance and respect tend to treat their neighbours in the same way.”

Promoting the rights and dignity of ordinary people around the world is a formidable challenge. Yet, as global security analyst David Rieff notes, “The old assumption that national sovereignty trumps all other principles in international relations is under attack as never before”. Because concerns for human rights have gained stature under international law and are being monitored more closely by IGOs and NGOs than ever before, we can expect human rights to receive continuing attention, as long as people are caught in emergency situations such as genocide or the threat of famine. Eleanor Roosevelt championed the cosmopolitan ideal, and her energetic leadership was largely responsible for global acceptance in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When thinking about the human condition in the early twenty-first century we can profit by the inspiration of her nightly prayer: “Save us from ourselves and show us a vision of a world made new”.

The recent example of humanitarian intervention is UN resolution on Libya and Western Coalition attack on Gaddafi’s forces, even though coalition claims that they only creating a no-fly zone. Unlike past interventions like Kosovo or Serbia, this one brought a lot of controversy. Some argue that it is justified as Gaddafi used air forces against his own people and so in order to stop genocide should be stopped form doing so. However others argue that Libya is sovereign country and so west have no right to intervene regardless of what going on in there. Also West can be accused in having double standards. While bombing Libya for “human rights abuses” it ignores the Bahrain government that already killed quite a few of protesters in the country. Bahrain government is supported by Saudi Arabia, the closed US ally in the Middle East, and so nobody seems to be interested what is going on there. Therefore we can argue that there is no real answer when humanitarian intervention can be used. Maybe Libya was attacked only because of huge media coverage and hysteria?

So although there is an emergent norm in support of humanitarian intervention it is still the subject of debate. Because states will never intervene in all situations of humanitarian emergency, state sovereignty remains intact. But in the case of widely recognized gross violations and when military intervention does not conflict with other national interests, then humanitarian intervention is seen as a justified use of force.