War is actually when there is a conflict either in a certain community or different countries. They may differ either because of a religion, tribe, political or economical disagreement. When there is a conflict between a certain group of people or individual persons that is not counted as a war. As much as war is brutal, ugly and disrupting, it still stands as a history to the human kind and his social life. Just war Theory in summary is a canon of military ethics. Some authors like Nicholas Adams have claimed that just war has long term impact but I differ here because just war is only relativistic and affects directly the people who are there at the moment. The people who are vulnerable to war are the ones on the war scene at that particular time. These are the people who may be affected for a period of time and if there is timely and proper humanitarian interventions delivered, then it takes a shorter time and the people affected will be healed. In the recent past, just war has been addressed in different categories; time to engage the armed force, and acceptance of using such forces.
There is a need anyway to incorporate a third section that will govern and ensure peace and prosecute the culprits during or immediately after the war whichever comes first. We can only claim the existence of just war if and only people try to overthrow the already existing power. When people try either forcefully or through lies push for imposition of and retention of already existing power, then we can say that the war is unjust or unfair war. There are several articles discussed under jus ad bellum including the cause, justice, authority, success probability, proportionality and last resort. There is always a cause of just war and these should be respected and listened from the two parties. Force must not be used at the early stage as this may only cause more harm and graves to the societies affected and public evil will definitely increase. Punishment should be given only to the wrong doers to secure the innocent life from danger. Justice must be observed by both affected parties. This part is normally neglected mostly by theorists who exploit by using pugnacious regime. When all other alternatives have been tried and there is no better solution, democracy has been tried and failed, and then force can be incorporated to save life. This should only come as a last resort after all available peaceful alternative has been tried and failed.
Under Jus in Bello, we have distinction; here, war should only be directed to the targeted people who were the cause and not at any level to the innocent people. .In this principle of proportionality, just war is to be directed by this aspect and the military force should not be too much. Lastly, we have military necessity where there should be minimum force in place. The objective should be to attack and get rid of the enemy and not to destroy the property of the civilian. The main purpose of this principle is to reduce superfluous death and devastation in the affected areas (Heinze, 2009).
Humanitarian intervention is that character of a certain international coutry coming in to assist avoids more destruction or violation of human rights. This in most cases does not need the approval of the affected country. It is actually different from humanitarian aid where the affected country must approve for the aid. One of the main problems that is currently affecting the international securities is this humanitarian interventions. There seems to be a problem on how best and when is the right time to intervene. We even have scholars who have broader knowledge on this issue but it seems that they have a shallow focus when it comes to the real intervention. The main objective of any government is to protect the lives of its citizen. Any government that fails to protect the whole life of its citizen including their belongings, then it has failed in its primary responsibility. At the same time, a government is not allowed to cross the boundaries and go kill the citizen of another country whether they are criminals or not. Neither is it allowed to kill them in their country. This contradiction has brought in a big debate up to date. As the debate continues using delayed tactics, there are several innocent lives that people keep on loosing. Lives of their beloved innocent relatives are taken away by these criminals who are protected by the international securities. It is a high time that people need to wake up and save the lives of the remaining people by quickly destroying the criminals. The question here is not if a state should execute with impunity but the question is to what level is this external intervention justified? After cold war involving USSR, people started living with a lot of uncertainty not knowing what do next (Lucas 2001). Even the united stated did not know how to come out as a world leader. It is here that there was war in international communities including Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia and Iraq. As people continued to debate on the level of humanitarian intervention, we continued loosing innocent lives.
Arguments for and against humanitarian interventions
There has been an ongoing debate that is taking so long as we continue loosing the lives of our beloved ones. Meggle (2004) argues that they should shift the discussion from the right to intervene to the responsibility to protect just to assist in shifting the discussion to another direction. Though this is a good step and should be acknowledged, we are not far from where we were. The question to be discussed has not been affected either. How far should the intervention go? What are their authority regulations? What is the operational effectiveness? All these questions have been left unanswered. Unless these questions among are answered, then we can not talk of responsibility to protect but humanitarian intervention.
There are cases whereby when a state has been jeopardized then there is a need of external humanitarian intervention. What are the repercussions when the humanitarians realize that it was among the key government officials who participated most? There are chances that the issue will be left pending to avoid increased war. This as much as we can say that the humanitarian intervention is effective, it has a weakness in an area where we really need it to be strong.
The commission is of the idea that if the name changes from its traditional name, then it is easier to change the contents because the old perception idea is gone and new ideas can easily be incorporated. The idea of introducing a new name 'responsibility to protect' is a good idea as it stands in between the subjugation and intervention (Meggle, 2004). This meaning that it will not only intervene but give a way forward.
The author should explain how best and what will be done to make the Security Council better. The article was produced just before the bombing of the United States and that was just an eye opener that as much as the best international security is in the US, they are still vulnerable to insecurity and war. The article insists that the country should call for the intervention act. There have been political conflicts mostly in the developing countries and the government officials who are supposed to be requesting for the interventions are the ones who repel any international interventions. This phrase should not apply unless we want to sit back and watch innocent lives being executed by the greedy and malicious politicians. Countries like Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe have been affected most by these political wars, and there was a case in Zimbabwe where the top political leaders incited and sat back safely to watch people killing each other. When this phase will be implemented then we are prone to loose several lives in a span of less those twenty years. If there is an international Council that has been formed then they must courageously step forward to ensure there is no violation of any human kind and that all human beings are protected and have a right to live. The should invade and intervene if there is mass killing and perpetrators executed without caring if they have superior post in their mother land.
For us to strive for a peaceful world and avoid uncertainty that bring long term negative effect there is a concern for humanitarian intervention. This model will only work if other issues will be incorporated. The responsibility to protect model of intervention proposed in 2001 will adequately work though it needs some more amendments to fully cater for the moral and political problems brought in by the humanitarian interventions. When the model insists that it will give protection to the countries who will ask for it, they are not considering the moral part of it. The country which are in war have even no time to request and may not even need the intervention because they want to win in the war and in the long run the results are massive death, and destructions. This can be prevented if the international council can oversee and avoid this at an early stage by even giving them ideas on how best to solve their differences.
The Charter of the UN by itself volunteering to take up an international position in solving humanitarian scandals, in its own we can say that they have a sovereignty responsibility. They consider human rights as their first objective and put that into considerations in every aspect of their operations.
Considering the for and against of the humanitarian interventions, the model produced in 2001 should be placed into trial to see how it can work and stop these endless debates that is just trying to eat time as the lives of innocent people continue being abused. If the military intervention in the Middle East will be proved successful, then this will mean that humanitarian intervention can be administered. This can make the whole issue so complicated because, if the real objective is to go to the affected country and administer humanitarian intervention, then how comes it is being administered from a distance. The objective insists that they should go to the affected country and administer by solving the problems using different peaceful options available and not forceful option. This forceful option only comes in as a last resort if they have detected massive destruction and mass execution of life. This option will be applied just to avoid more graves that may have been created in the country. It does not matter what model the council will opt to use but as long as there is a long term peace in the whole world, that is what matters and in fact, that should be the vision for the council. We are looking forward to those days when there will be no war and if there arises one there is quick intervention to save lives and property.
All these are easier said than done. The first step that the council should take is to stop debating and start by finally acknowledging this new model and be given a right to intervene. The experience we have had and the aftermath of Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo is enough and so comprehensive and we need to reassess and engage new tools and devices to prevent this in the near future. This will allow us to be able to realize the foreseeable desires of the 21st century.