Powell The current military escalation against ISIS, French engagement in the Sahel, and numerous UN and regional peacekeeping operations illustrate that military interventions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Today, most of these interventions, at least nominally, aim at ending armed conflict and re building functional states with some degree of inclusive governance. It is a good idea to ask why such policies often fail. Even when narrow stabilization goals are met, such as in a number of French interventions in Chad and the former Zaire, this often occurs at the expense of long-term stability and democratic governance.
Interventions rarely, if ever, positively contribute to improving the political environments that originally generated the crises which sparked the interventions in the first place. While each case is clearly different, the failure of most of these interventions to achieve the desired stability and accountable governance implies a need for a serious rethink about how interventions are conducted.
This discussion largely misses the point. Military effectiveness has very little bearing on the success of interventions.
Indeed, most such interventions feature a recurring series of obstacles. The problem is that flawed analyses of the politics of violence often lead to intervention strategies badly suited to the realities on the ground. This logic also led to western support for a large number of other unsavoury regimes, in order to prevent the spread of communism.
Their ideology was often informed by socialist worldviews, but their politics was supremely local or national.Humanitarian interventions are not a panacea for ending conflicts, but they should not be discounted as a tool for handling conflict, especially since interventions provide a coordinated, international response to stop crimes against humanity.
The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda; Global Memo.
The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda. interventions should, where possible, attempt to stop the. Humanitarian Intervention, the Responsibility to Protect, and Confused Legitimacy. 1. working doctrine of humanitarian intervention. After discussing the individual contributions of these especially since few humanitarian interventions have actually been undertaken in the past decade compar ed with the s.
However. Civil society groups within conflict zones, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq or Darfur, tend to be close to the humanitarian position. It is often civil society that calls for interventions to protect them from violence, but at the same time, they are often the victims of the excessive use of force.
The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention for mounting armed humanitarian interventions, explains this Backgrounder.
community and brought to the fore conflict not only in the Security. The Need for Intervention: A Counterfactual Approach to Challenging War Theories humanitarian interventions should only be used as a tool at the disposal of the hegemon, or dominant party.
the international community is responsible for preventing deadly conflict and other forms of man-made catastrophe and seeking all possible channels.