• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Humanitarian intervention: who's framework?

Humanitarian intervention: who's framework?


  • Total voters
    8
Humanitarian intervention only by interested core nations of perceived civilizations, as per their natural interests. The larger nations can intervene, police and negotiate with each other in a much more civil manner than their periphery neighbors recently war with each other.

Anarchic yes, but natural, humane and possible.
 
Just so it is clear, my position is that it would be "just" or legitimate for a nation to go to war to stop genocide (strictly as defined under the Convention on Genocide). I do not suggest that a nation's going to war should be mandatory under such circumstances.
 
We stay out of it. It's none of our business.
 
Just so it is clear, my position is that it would be "just" or legitimate for a nation to go to war to stop genocide (strictly as defined under the Convention on Genocide). I do not suggest that a nation's going to war should be mandatory under such circumstances.

And I am certainly not saying it is mandatory that a nation go to war either under any circumstances.
 
And I am certainly not saying it is mandatory that a nation go to war either under any circumstances.

I'm familiar with your position, as we have had a rather lengthy discussion. I just wanted to be sure that others understood that the question really concerns whether military intervention under the above circumstances would be legitimate (e.g., it would not constitute aggression). Neither criterion would require a state to intervene militarily.
 
We stay out of it. It's none of our business.

Neither of our positions precludes an isolationist stance. The only question concerns whether military intervention under such circumstances could be legitimate. No state would be compelled to do so even if such basis were legitimate.
 
I'm familiar with your position, as we have had a rather lengthy discussion. I just wanted to be sure that others understood that the question really concerns whether military intervention under the above circumstances would be legitimate (e.g., it would not constitute aggression). Neither criterion would require a state to intervene militarily.

Yes, we did have a lengthy discussion. Thank you for that! I thoroughly enjoyed it. But it seemed we had sussed out the angles so I switched to a poll. Unfortunately, I worded it badly, offered limited options, didn't include a 'never justified' option, and was generally hasty in my objective. Darn it.
 
Neither of our positions precludes an isolationist stance. The only question concerns whether military intervention under such circumstances could be legitimate. No state would be compelled to do so even if such basis were legitimate.

It's not isolationist to stay out of it and it's not legitimate to get involved.
 
I probably don't have a lot to add to this conversation. Military intervention for any cause except direct reprisal can be considered aggression, but I don't consider aggression to be illegitimate. If the conduct of one nation, whether within its own borders or otherwise, disturbs the citizens of another nation then the second nation is well within its rights to use its military to effect change.
 
Work behind the scenes to destablize and arm conflicting factions. Give more powerful weapons to the weak and give more money, and confidence, to the strong. Let their own inner demons eat away at them until finally...

*snap*​


And it all goes ass up in a hurry. When most everyone's dead, dying, or weakened from the fighting, we take the side with the least amount of numbers and back them, build them up, give them absolute power and ensure they abuse it. Instill hatred for them from the now enslaved former enemy.


Rinse and Repeat as necessary.




Wait. were we trying to accomplish an end goal here? I just wanted to watch the place burn...
 
Wait. were we trying to accomplish an end goal here? I just wanted to watch the place burn...

You can make a lot of money for your country if you play this game carefully. It's an investment of resources now, but your arms manufacturers, construction firms, and medical suppliers will see dividends in the long run.
 
You can make a lot of money for your country if you play this game carefully. It's an investment of resources now, but your arms manufacturers, construction firms, and medical suppliers will see dividends in the long run.

Perpetual cycles, if maintained properly, do have quite a nice, constant yield...
 
You know whether other countries in the world want to admit it or not, and no matter their complaints when we act....there is an expectation that the US will...no should step up and bring justice where it needs to be. The method used to bring it, varies from situation to situation, but as the lone superpower and beacon of liberty, there is an expectation. And I think the US usually feels the pressure to do something.
 
You know whether other countries in the world want to admit it or not, and no matter their complaints when we act....there is an expectation that the US will...no should step up and bring justice where it needs to be. The method used to bring it, varies from situation to situation, but as the lone superpower and beacon of liberty, there is an expectation. And I think the US usually feels the pressure to do something.

We should let a few crazy despots take over, and let France handle it. See how much ass-kicking gets done then...
 
I don't think that a framework is really what you need to use for these situations. I think it is too dangerous for a country to box itself into a sealed idealogical construct regarding its use of force in humanitarian intervention. While we may feel morally obligated to respond to humanitarian crisis, economically it is not sound to respond to each and every instance, nor is it sound from a standpoint of having a fresh reserve ready for one's own national defense. Particularly when a country shoulders a vast majority of the operational burden alone.

There are plenty of humanitarian crisis we could respond too. That we should respond to if we are to really believe in those so called human rights. But we cannot. The cost is simply too great for one nation alone to bear, both in money and in blood. But ignoring them is equally dangerous, as it allows caustic ideologies to spread their influence around the globe, creating greater humanitarian crisis.

Unfortunantley, because of a lack of will to use force to uphold and spread the ideals of human rights by the majority of UN members, humanitarian crisis will continue on a smaller scale, and those ignored crisis will always be the rallying point for people who are against the next war that we fight. But rather than direct their ire towards non-involved nation-states, they will find fault with the US choice of battlefield.
 
I totally agree with what WI Crippler has said. This thread was supposed to be about which framework defines justified conflicts, not that we would actually get involved in those conflicts necessarily - just that we could in clear conscience. Issues of National Interests for the state, available resources, and considerations of public will would all still apply to whether your state would get involved. It was my fault for not making that more clear.

What I don't see is the moral argument for some of the other ideas mentioned in this thread.
 
I don't think that a framework is really what you need to use for these situations. I think it is too dangerous for a country to box itself into a sealed idealogical construct regarding its use of force in humanitarian intervention.

I agree on this point.

Polling questions, due to how short the questions are, can lose nuance. The theoretical framework, from the way I understood it, offered guidance to some definitive cases where the use of military force would be legitimate. It was not intended to be all-inclusive. A sovereign state always needs to retain sufficient flexibility to safeguard or secure its interests and not every scenario is foreseeable.
 
WI Crippler said:
I don't think that a framework is really what you need to use for these situations. I think it is too dangerous for a country to box itself into a sealed idealogical construct regarding its use of force in humanitarian intervention.
I agree on this point.

Polling questions, due to how short the questions are, can lose nuance. The theoretical framework, from the way I understood it, offered guidance to some definitive cases where the use of military force would be legitimate. It was not intended to be all-inclusive. A sovereign state always needs to retain sufficient flexibility to safeguard or secure its interests and not every scenario is foreseeable.

Don, this seems to be at stark odds with what you were representing previously:

donsutherland1 said:
The single humanitarian issue for which I believe it would be justified for a state to go to war concerns the ongoing act of genocide or credible and imminent threat of genocide, using the narrow definition provided in the Convention on Genocide.

That sounds like a pretty all-inclusive statement to me.

If it was not all-inclusive, then that would mean that given the right set of national interests, going to humanitarian intervention on the basis of subjugation might be reasonable. So you think Iraq war was justified?
 
Last edited:
Don, this seems to be at stark odds with what you were representing previously

A general framework provides guidance, but should not iron-clad. Otherwise, in the dynamic flow of human events, it would be overly rigid.

I can think of some exceptions to my general rules. For example, let's say a civil war has erupted in a state between two ethnic groups and, depending on the outcome of that conflict, a neighboring state would be at credible and imminent risk of conflict among its own population. In that case, I believe military intervention could be justified. Moreover, in such circumstances, I reject the Walzer idea that such intervention should not be so decisive as to alter the outcome of that civil conflict, even if that outcome runs counter to the self-determination of the majority of people in that state. A state's highest duty is to its own security and existence, not the self-determination of people in a neighboring state when there is a conflict between the two.

That sounds like a pretty all-inclusive statement to me.

If it was not all-inclusive, then that would mean that given the right set of national interests, going to humanitarian intervention on the basis of subjugation might be reasonable. So you think Iraq war was justified?

My view is that military intervention aimed at preventing/stopping genocide offers the clearest-cut example where a humanitarian cause could be sufficient to justify military intervention. Even there, some additional flexibility could exist e.g., if a government's actions are creating a significant flow of refugees into a neighboring state and such a development is at credible and imminent risk of destabilizing that neighboring state. So, in theory, there might be exceptional circumstances where subjugation could play a role, but my guess is that such circumstances would be rare.

My worry about extending humanitarian military interventions to cover all forms of subjugation is that such criteria is overly broad and could be exploited for malevolent purposes. Such assured broad latitude for justifying conflict could well morph into license for would-be aggressors to advance valid justification under which they could cloak their aggression. It could also lead make it too easy for there to be forceful interference in other states' internal affairs. Either outcome could, in the whole scheme of things, lead to greater instability, more frequent conflict, and net overall costs.

My opinion is that much narrower criteria would be better, allowing for some flexibility on a case-by-case basis where extenuating circumstances exist. I provided two examples. However, my guess is that the overwhelming number of situations would not produce such extenuating circumstances. Hence, my framework--and such framework is my personal opinion, only--would apply to the vast majority of cases where one seeks to evaluate whether military intervention could be legitimate.

As for Iraq, my view is that although there was a credible threat (as per the Intelligence assessments at the time, which turned out to be incorrect) but not an imminent one (something the intelligence assessments got correct) and there was no ongoing or credible and imminent threat of genocide, the war would not qualify as "just" under my framework. Needless to say, error does not invalidate a conflict's nature, as perfection cannot be the standard by which human decisionmaking is judged. With respect to Iraq, I can't think of extentuating circumstances that might change my assessment.
 
A general framework provides guidance, but should not iron-clad. Otherwise, in the dynamic flow of human events, it would be overly rigid.

Thanks for the great explanation. I had gathered that you were coming at this from a very legalistic POV, whereby you would want the Convention on Genocide codified as a reason for war. Yet your statement here that it not be iron-clad seems to bely that. Did I misunderstand or assume something not true about your position?
 
Back
Top Bottom