The current statistics of human losses in genocides and civil wars worldwide raises a critical political question of whether militarily intervention is justifiable. Leaders around the world often give political or human rights justifications to qualify military interventions. In fact, political reasons include national defense, political expansion, and the balance of the international political system (Sullivan & Koch, 2009). The most compelling reason is linked to the moral obligation of a humanitarian cause to protect civilian human rights from the atrocities of their governments and rebels. Military intervention describes the coercive interference by external parties within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state using armed forces (Nardin, 2013). Importantly, military intervention can take the form of …show more content…
In particular, some critics argue that such response is an illegal violation of states sovereignty. In international relations, states are independent entities with protection from foreign interference by the international law (Nieuwenhuis, 2015). Thus, military interventions are a breach of country's right to establish a stable political community. Furthermore, some countries have abused the human rights intervention to pursue political goals. Therefore, to prevent countries altering their use of powers to wage pretext wars, the global community should restrict the application of armed forces, especially as a unilateral decision by one comity (Nieuwenhuis, 2015). Other critics argue that rebel groups may use violence to provoke. For example, in the 2003 Darfur conflict, rebels caused government massacre of civilians to warrant the UN intervention (Whitty, 2008). In spite of the criticism, the intervention often does better than harm since the failure of such initiatives amounts to abandoning helpless citizens to local lawless and aggressive