The matters concerning humanitarian intervention have for a considerable time been at the forefront of intercontinental relations discourse, predominantly after Cold War. Owing to its complexity the issue has been a highly contentious topic as it impacts millions of people in several states and regions globally. Nevertheless, the international actors have not yet come up with consensus on criteria for deciding the ethics of intervention regarding affairs of other nation. Based on the reading it appears that the rationale of humanitarian intervention can be agreed on respect to two principles. The first one is the realist perspective, under this, the inviolability of sovereign states rights is given precedence (Gaskarth, 2013). A state should not use their forces against the territorial integrity of another nation, except self-defense (Eckersley, 2007). As of such intervention is not tolerable. The second principle justifies intervention from a liberal approach to protecting the innocent while punishing the wrong (Gelb, & Rosenthal, 2003).
If a government official believes that intervention is unethical, it is essential for him or her to utilize political and legal spheres to counter the interference. Both legal and political avenues provide a means by which such government official can raise his voice demonstrating how unethical the intervention is. Such avenues also help in creating awareness on ethics of intervention while at the same time demanding the rationale for the invasion. On the other hand, economic sanctions form a humane alternative to war, and most often they are implemented with a sole intention of changing the target state behavior to provoke conformity with international ethics (Smith, 1998). However, economic sanctions have ethical cost as it impacts innocent citizens. Financial punishment when used as a form of intervention weaken and hurt the innocent "civilian" who they intend t...
No More Academic Problems! Place Your Order and Let the Pros Do It for You!