The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

To make a valid agreement for whether to be in favor of or against human rights prosecutions and humanitarian intervention one must look at both sides. However, that will not be enough. Every country is different; ideologies, norms, culture language and the list can go on forever. It is important to look at these factors as well when one looks at these cases. The United States of Americas decision to bomb Libya in 2011, was a decision that has been justified to save lives. Before and during the Libyan conflict the Obama administration had a fear that without intervention a genocide would happen. This justification is a part of a UN-endorsed document called Humanitarian Intervention. This doctrine states that foreign military intervention is needed when nation-states do not or unwilling protect its citizens from gross human rights violations. However, this doctrine has created more problems than solutions in Libya. Human rights violations increased after the death of Gaddafi, and political turmoil has also increased. This universal jurisdiction to attack Libya created domestic unrest,

They should have followed Kathryn Sikkink three enforcement mechanisms. These enforcement mechanisms are meant to be non-violent and used in a way that can influence other countries to do the morally right thing. The first mechanism is shaming. Shaming can help change cultural norms that in turn influence the political scene. Economic coercion is the second mechanism but it doesn’t include sanctions. Sanctions affect and hurt the average citizens the most. The third way to influence a country is by prosecuting violators of human rights. Prosecuting these people affect neighboring countries as well. By putting pressure on neighboring countries leaders to not commit human rights violations. These enforcements might be slow in action, making present atrocities worse. However, they do prevent larger atrocities from happening in the