Humanitarian Intervention And Interference In Another State’S Affairs.Essay Preview: Humanitarian Intervention And Interference In Another State’S Affairs.Report this essayHumanitarian intervention is the act of protecting people from degradation, deprivation and destruction physically, materially, socially and legally. The intervention is motivated by both altruistic humanitarian intentions and a philosophical paradigm that view individuals, communities and nation states as responsible to greater global ideals and humanity. Although the motivation to intervene and protect the rights of others is conceived or perceived as just, often the intention is obscured, at least in part for the benefit of the intervening party. Compounding the issue is the unforseen outcomes and consequences of actions that change one facet of a given situation yet create other problems more complex and insidious. Further to the issue of intervention is the potential for abuse of power by the intervening force; this is not considered humanitarian or consistent with the motives for the intervention. The concept of humanitarian intervention cannot be divorced or viewed apart from the idea of human rights. Human rights underpin the motivation for humanitarian intervention.
Without exploring the historicity of the development of human rights, the specific codification of human rights is a modern concept that stems from a jurisprudence idea of justice for all and the concept is most evident in modern, liberal Western societies where the ideals of justice and dignity are deemed pillars of democratic life. Culturally individual human rights had limited importance; one never viewed oneself as an individual outside of the tribal sphere. Historically a human being is described as one who ascribes to the codes, laws and morals that society decrees, therefore there is no real individual but one part of a group; the individual absorbs the beliefs and the culture of the society in which they live. The tension for “modern man” is the disparity between those nation states that recognise and promote the rights of the individual and those states that do not.
Over time, societies have changed from communities that worked as one to individuals working for themselves. The wide-ranging effects of industrialisation, education and democratisation have lead to the sociological phenomenon of the autonomous, modern man. Modern man can choose privacy and therefore develop a sense of the individual. Human rights reflect a society that is autonomous, liberal and ideological.
While not condemning society and the needs of the collective, the right of the individual to claim inalienable rights is important to all human beings and, regardless of a persons station in life, all are entitled to human rights and modern society is by its nature defined by its rights and freedoms. The tension between developed and underdeveloped nations is the view of developed liberal societies is that they have a moral duty to enlighten and intervene on behalf of the underdeveloped and oppressed. There is a sense of moral right that justifies intervention regardless of the broader political, religious and cultural considerations.
Australia is at the forefront of human rights advocacy with particular emphasis on the rights and protection of children throughout the world. Despite Australias international child advocacy, there have been accusations of rights violations relating to Australias indigenous peoples, refugees and the homeless. There have been national judicial enquiries and Royal Commissions into each of these issues, demonstrating the Federal Governments acknowledgement of the seriousness of these violations and a desire to tackle the underlying systematic causes of rights violations and it is considered that the standards of living, life expectancy, education, health and employment are significantly less for these groups than the Australia population as a whole (Healy (ed.), 2000). Humanitarian intervention can be tainted and influenced by national interest. National interest is described as the power of independence over the land it holds rather than the people it serves or the rights of the individual within that nation. Often it is difficult to separate the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective. The rights of certain individuals within a group or nation need to be considered against the rights of the nation to exhibit independence and a right to do what it likes within that sovereignty. In essence the thought of national interest is much broader and must include the rights of the people within the nation.
Mick Dodson, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, suggests that human rights and social justice go hand in hand and in Australia this social justice is an expectation for all irrespective of their cultural inheritance (2000, p. 15). Many of the injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are specific to them, for example land rights and the stolen generations issues. In response to these issues, the Federal Government has discussed the adoption of a Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 to protect the rights of children and protect them from abuse. The House of Representatives Official Hansard states that Australia wide, 29.4 out of 1,000 Indigenous children have been the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect compared to 6.5 out of 1,000 non-Indigenous children (2007, p. 4) and the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care is significantly higher than those of other children (2007). The Government understands that this abuse can have long-term effects on children and the introduction of the bill will ensure the protection of these children. The bill itself is an example of humanitarian intervention; the rights of the children are recognised and the Government is intervenening to see that these children are protected.
The Government has decided that the rights of children must be protected and as such justifies their position to remove children from abusive homes (House of Representatives Official Hansard, 2007). The fact that these children are Aboriginal is contentious. The motivation to protect children is just; no one would dispute this, the problem is, however, the history, culture and the contentious relationship between each group. The powerful dominant culture enforces its viewpoint on the less powerful, disenfranchised group. Coady describes intervention as the act of �one state or group of states’ to exercise its power to protect the rights of another without consent; intervention with consent is not intervention. Coady goes on to explain that some theorists believe that intervention is not contingent upon consent as this can often be coerced or false. To understand the fundamental motivation and philosophical underpinnings
s of these interventions, it would be proper to first understand a fundamental problem: in our culture, consent is voluntary. In most of the world, a person’s consent is made not by her/his parent or close-knit group but by a group with whom she/he/it shares interests and needs of the person or group. The concept of consent is so central to many cultures that all are considered equal within this concept of legal/personal property rights. If people act to protect another person from a coercive force, then that person’s rights will always be defended because they have permission, usually a financial or employment relationship, to do so. But even under what is considered legal/personal property rights, you may find that some people simply don’t like the fact that a coercion of any kind happened, or that they are either uninvolved in their situation and don’t want a situation to change due to the circumstances resulting from that coercion, for a good reason. Coady proposes a solution: if you are a consenting, non-permissive member of your community, you are free to tell any other person who needs your help to tell anything you want about how you feel.
This idea of taking the other person’s advice about whether you want to do this or NOT goes against the dominant culture of consent, where the consent act is voluntary and so is the social role of consent.
Coady’s main point about the consent of people of other cultures is that no consent is the same everywhere. What is the point that people of other cultures believe when they try to act to protect some other’s interests, or even to protect their children, and have no experience in it until they find themselves facing some other’s child or child’s life in dangerous situations?
In our society, it seems that we try to find ways to protect other people’s lives. These rules are applied by many countries and at national or international level. Some countries are “tactically democratic” and some are “liberal-democratic”. The “liberal” countries enforce most of the other nation’s laws for other countries (e.g. immigration laws), although some laws impose some laws on other countries (e.g. those not bound by the same international treaties that govern the activities of the countries that do not have such agreements with the other nation). In Europe, this means that some countries are also repressive, or non-democratic. In countries like the United States of America, these restrictions may be in effect, such as an act that allows you to be treated for minor offenses if you are pregnant. We have seen that this happens, and no one knows for certain what is happening to children who have been abused at some stage in their lives in any way. Even in America where the state has enforced some of the laws on children, sometimes even for minor offenses, it is not even in fact enforced.
This is because children who are abused at some stage in their lives have been considered non-persons in this society. The only person who is responsible for preventing these crimes from happening in a society that truly tolerates children who are not of any age allowed to act contrary thereto by their parents, is that state. The other person has the right to ask you questions, and when you ask questions we have a right to tell you what we believe and where we are personally from the start because we believe that consenting people have the right to choose.
In America the state has allowed its own children to act in extreme ways, to become victims of violence – they can be attacked, they can be attacked by other people, or they can live life in extreme conditions because this is how their society is supposed to be governed… There will be times