International Relations Essay Assignment Help
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 | Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages: 5-10 |
Instructions:
Description
Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect
“Following the atrocities committed in the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda and the NATO military intervention in Kosovo, the international community engaged in a serious debate on how to react to gross and systematic violations of human rights. In September 1999, Kofi Annan reflected upon the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century.
He challenged the Member States to find common ground in upholding the Charter’s principles and acting in defense of common humanity. In his 2000 Millennium Report, Annan repeated the challenge saying that: if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to the gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?
The International Commission took the challenge on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian Government, which at the end of 2001 issued a report entitled Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
The concept of the responsibility to protect drew inspiration from Francis Dengs idea of State sovereignty as a responsibility and affirmed the notion that sovereignty is not just protection from outside interference rather is a matter of states having positive responsibilities for their populations welfare, and to assist each other. Consequently, the primary responsibility for protecting its people rested first and foremost with the State itself.
However, a residual responsibility also lay with the broader community of states, which was activated when a particular state is clearly either unwilling or unable to fulfill its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities
The subsequent report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change endorsed the principle that State sovereignty carried with it the obligation of the State to protect its own people, and that if the State was unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility shifted to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect them.
Neither report asserted a basis to use force for this purpose other than Security Council authorization under Chapter VII of the Charter as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other serious international crimes.
At the 2005 high-level UN World Summit meeting, Member States finally committed to the principle of the responsibility to protect. Though the concept adopted omitted some of the aspects proposed initially by the ICISS, it retains its fundamental aspects to prevent and respond to the most serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
While the principle of the responsibility to protect was generally accepted, there was little, if any consensus as to the doctrine’s enforceability. Complicating matters was the notion of sovereignty, under which states had every right to decline any request for information on their own human rights conditions.
Any state had the right to deny foreign intervention (initially diplomatic) and ‘meddling’ into its internal affairs. Furthermore, while many member-states ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most listed objections to the declaration’s provisions and would only acknowledge rights already awarded to their citizen, rendering the remainder of the declaration irrelevant to their own country.
As a result, a contested dilemma exists among scholars of International Relations and Policymakers in regard to the use of armed/military force when human rights violations are suspected and even confirmed.
The argument of R2P proponents is that the greater international community, has a duty & responsibility toward the protection of human life when a state fails to protect its citizen from external and internal elements which are threatening to human life; or in cases where the State is the actual perpetrator and violator of human rights.
Others disagree, arguing that states have an inherent right to their Sovereignty, and as such, no Intergovernmental Organization or external government has the power to direct nor intervene in a Sovereign State’s internal affairs.
Reviewing the readings and material provided in Module VI and Module VII, what is the contested argument that States and/or coalitions make for the use of armed force against the aggressor(s)? What arguments are the arguments against the use of force, or the use of Diplomatic forms of intervention (i.e. the international community voicing oppositions to a state’s action or enacting embargos and sanctions against a state perceived to violate human rights)?
In your answer, you should aim to describe one historic example of a country, the international community, or a coalition of states, intervening in another country as a result of that country’s inability to protect its own citizens? Aim to answer the topic by asking the following questions:
What was the conflict about? Was the state under siege by another state? Was the state engulfed in civil unrest which turned to violent conflict among citizens?
Was the state the aggressor? Did the government violate the basic human rights of its citizens in an effort to retain control over the country?
Was there an organized terror or guerilla group that was taking over as the government was failing?
Then look at the following:
How did the media portray the conflict? Who was at fault? Citizens or the government? (Think about countries farther away from the conflict and those closer to the region of the conflict, did they portray it in the same manner?)
How long before there was any international concern for the conflict?
Did the International Community intervene? Did specific countries intervene?
What was the overall outcome, if any?
International Relations Essay Assignment Help
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
International Relations Essay Assignment Help