The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

840 Words4 Pages

Humanitarian intervention has been a term and a practice in international realm for ages. It has been done in several parts of this world, such as humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia. When couple of parts of former Yugoslavia attempted to gain their own national independence and become sovereign. Also what happened in Rwanda, Kosovo, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia, East Timor, and so forth.
This term has remained controversial regarding the motives behind it, whether the intervention was purely based on individual states’ interest, sovereignty, group of states, or by the United Nation. Several perspectives also come from the society, humanitarian intervention seen as a way to free the miserables out of the violation of human rights conducted in a state. However there are also some against this idea, humanitarian intervention could weaken a state’s sovereignty, and is potential to break the rules applied in UN charter, and it is also might threaten the international stability caused by the use of armed force in applying the humanitarian intervention itself. …show more content…

Speaking of which, in line of the constructivism theory in international relations where constructivism tries to build a bridge between realism and liberalism, drawing from structurationist and symbolic inter-actionist sociology, on behalf of liberal claim that international institutions can transform state identities and interests (Wendt, 1992). In which the realist and liberalist failed to explain that international norms shape state interests to explain how practices regarding humanitarian intervention have changed over the years.