Is the UN selective in its humanitarian intervention?

Question

I am going to write a project on the topic - Is the United Nations selective in its humanitarian intervention? Can someone give me some ideas. You can email me on [e-mail].

Many thanks.

Answer 1

I don't have an answer. But a few thoughts. The UN is a very large body. This brings massive inertia to any decision making process. And by humanitarian intervention, I'm taking it that you mean action in opposition to a government?

So to take action in opposition to a government, the issue must be identified, debated, and action agreed to, and then the mission has to be funded, and organized. Only after this process, can an intervention take place.

If the crises occurs and is complete before the decision making can be completed, should this be held against the UN?

So I would approach the project like this:

examine the UN decision making process.

Establish criteria to identify the type of crises you want to include.

Decide how you will establish time line for the crises. (when did it become evident that crises was in process or imminent, and when did it end)

Make a list of all the crises for your project and determine timeliness

If there were crises which fell within the decision making time-frame, and no intervention took place, compare them to similar crises where action was taken.

Good luck

Answer 2

In short yes but it is very important to understand why.

You have to look at it from this point of view, the world poltical system is build on the idea of state sovereignty which dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 and means that states are allowed to choose their own policys without interference from other states. That this idea underpins the world system is always taken into account when choosing if it is to be broken.

To give an example of the above R. J Vincent would say that a threat to life/murder of a person on the New York subway is a breach of human rights but it does not warrent intervention. Therefore we must to turn to the idea of a ‘supreme humanitarian emergency’ that is given by Nick Wheeler in Saving Strangers (if you want to get a book on Humanitarian Intervention this is the best by far) where he says that only under certain conditions does one intervene though as to what these are is one of the big debates among the academics in the field.

Another thing to understand is that under the UN charter the UN is not (it is genraly accepted) legaly allowed to practice Humanitarian Intervention. There is descent in the field of International Law where there are two camps restrictionists and counter restrictionists. The restrictionists are the main school and argue against HI under the charter, they argue Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force by individual states, while 2(7) prevents Chapter VII because one is not allowed to intervene in what is essentially the domestic affairs of a state. The counter-restrictionists will argue that it is allowed and that 55(c) binds the UN to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights, and that 56 binds member states to take joint and separate action to achieve 55, but 55 also binds to promote full employment and the chances of intervention to help that are slim :P. Because of the questionable legality of and intervention it is very easy for China or Russia to block any attempt by the UN with their vetos. But this does not mean it can not happen the Somali intervention of the early 90s shows that even if the charter does not allow it the UN can be made to act.

I hope that is not too long...

P.S to the guy that said there are not any successful ones see East Timor, Kosovo (though not UN) and Operation Provide Comfort/Poised Hammer to name but a few

Answer 3

I think you will have a hard time finding any successful humanitarian intervention.

To be fair, the UN has no teeth. It was designed without a military of it's own, and so it relies on the best efforts of member nations, which are always dependant upon either the USA or upon the USA and good politics.

Answer 4

There's a whole segment of history that the goverment does not allow to be taught in schools. If a teacher, working in a public school, tried to teach it, she'd be declared an antisemite and lose her job. Once you know that history, however, the answer to your question will become clear.

Answer 5

jenab6 gave you the answer , if the Zionist dictates we intervene we will as America controls the U,N, so unless it directly benefits the Zionist we don't intervene, and no one dares to go against them in a public forum or politically , it is suicide for a politician to make a derogatory statement about Israel or the Zionist, you can get this information from goggle directly,

Answer 6

of course the UN is selective they are not going to change thier ways,,for you or me,,

Answer 7

yes.