Intervention on Humanity...

Intervention on humanity in the world is a particularly crucial thing. It prevents crimes against humanity and deliberate systematic destruction of racial, political or cultural group. Human intervention can commence in a nation’s goal of peace keeping especially during war and as humanitarian aid to countries that are experiencing natural calamities, epidemics and other plagues which endangers the lives of the people living in it. Unfortunately, despite the importance of human intervention, the international community is less likely to undertake meaningful and effective humanitarian intervention in the coming years because of failure to develop an adequate legal basis for the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and by the number of geo-political factors that mitigates against it. As such, the international community has lost one of its key tools to prevent crimes against humanity.


The doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law typically refers to the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of a particular state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights, including genocide and crimes against humanity. Because the doctrine is not expressly recognized in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as a permissible basis for using force, many states and scholars oppose its use, at least when exercised without authorization by the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, some states and scholars favor the use of the doctrine in extreme situations on the grounds that, in any just legal system, the value of preventing the loss of life and suffering must outweigh the value of normative constraints on the use of transnational force.


Throughout this period, however, there was no accepted prohibition on states' resort to the use of armed force in international law, so the concept of humanitarian intervention was not an exception to a general prohibition but, rather, a basis for explaining why an intervention was just. Thus, the basic UN Charter paradigm is that states are prohibited from using force against other states, but may do so when they are acting in self-defense against an armed attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The Security Council, in turn, is only empowered to act when there is a "threat to the peace," which was originally conceived as transnational threats. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention does not fit easily within this paradigm, since a state that uses force to protect the human rights of another state's nationals is not acting in self-defense against an armed attack and, in many instances, the deprivation of human rights may not entail a threat to transnational peace. Humanitarian Intervention can either give a positive effect or negative effect on a certain country. Depending on how are we going to use it or the motive of using it. Humanitarian intervention with gravely affect millions of lives that is why there’s still no definite rule on its implementation.