Having a clear political context should be important in the topic of intervention. Humanitarian assistance should always be perceived as a democratic action. For instance, International NGOs and the UN strongly state that their activities are non-political and impartial. They provide assistance on the basis of need without regard to the recipient’s ethnicity, religion or political position. (Seybolt 17)
Having a clear distinction between humanitarian and political work should be a big priority. “According to this view, humanitarian and political objectives must be separated so that local actors do not see humanitarian intervention as a tool for their own political objectives.” (Seybolt 18) In a way, Humanitarian theorists argue that a lack of impartiality will cause situations in which humanitarian action is corrupted and that the best way to address these problems is to keep a
…show more content…
This tradition has some connection with international law and humanitarian intervention. “It holds that armed intervention is morally justified when people are violently mistreated by their rulers, and is reflected in the widely held opinion that states, acting unilaterally or collectively, are justified in enforcing respect for human rights.” (Nardin 2000) It is this concept that best describes the moral of humanitarian intervention. Common morality does not limit the use of force to self-defense. It allows us to defend, by force, the rights of others when those rights are threatened. In other words, by violating the freedom of other, they cost their own. We are justified in using as much force as is needed to stop the attack. As conclusion we see that to respect other human beings means not only that we must not interfere with their freedom but also that we should help them to achieve their