Volume XXXII – Number 1
Mahmood Monshipouri & Rodger L. Jackson
Abstract: The Post-Cold War era has been characterized by an increased willingness of states to intervene militarily in the name of preserving human rights. It is a trend not seen during the Cold War, when interventions of this nature would risk direct confrontation between the two superpowers, and had the potential to do more harm than good. However, the willingness to intervene has brought up serious political and ethical issues, ranging from the proposed violation of a state’s sovereignty to the moral principles upon which intervention is based upon. This piece breaks down the factors behind a state’s decision to intervene into political factors and ethical factors. Politically, intervention brings to a head the question of human rights and the sovereignty of states. Military intervention in the name of human rights is nearly universally seen as morally just, but violating state sovereignty is a norm in international relations that is also universally seen as inalienable. Would the international community be willing to make sovereignty conditional, and if so, what would the ramifications be? In terms of morality, can morals be applied to states? And if so, can they come to an agreement on what is right and what is wrong? This piece explores these dilemmas in the context of American military intervention in post-Cold War Conflicts, such as Rwanda and Bosnia, and comes to the conclusion that intervention is justified when human rights are threatened, but that new rules of engagement must be introduced to reflect the reality that is an increasingly complex global system.
Keywords: Human rights, Interventionism, Military, Ethics
