Chapter 23 Self-test questions

. What is the relationship between Westphalian sovereignty and humanitarian intervention?

In its advocacy of global political institutions, the Treaty of Westphalia defined state sovereignty as being subject to the behaviour of the political or ruling elite in that state, prioritizing human welfare over arbitrary values of sovereignty and thus legitimizing humanitarian intervention where necessary.

Theories of Westphalian sovereignty decree that principles of non-intervention are paramount to achieving security; this has been extended into the contemporary global security environment in which international bodies such as the UN condemn humanitarian intervention, regarding it as detrimental to state-centric security.

State sovereignty and principles of non-interference that underpin the Westphalian approach can be disregarded, provided that there is a consensus amongst international actors that human life within the state is at risk, and where that risk is from the actions of the state itself.

The international society is governed by norms of Westphalian sovereignty that advocate non-intervention and the respect of state sovereignty as a means of achieving security. These norms are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which bans the use of force between states except in self-defence or when authorized by the UN.

. Which of the following best describes the case for humanitarian intervention?

Associated with Kantian philosophy, the foundational idea in support of humanitarian intervention is that all individuals have human rights that must be protected.

Just War theory and Christian theology can be interpreted to advocate the use of force through humanitarian intervention where the need to allay human suffering justifies such actions.

Associated with liberalism and cosmopolitanism, the foundational idea in support of humanitarian intervention is that external actors have a duty as well as a right to intervene to halt genocide and mass atrocities.

Due to the social interconnectedness that is the result of globalization, and which characterizes the contemporary global society, humanitarian intervention is necessary in order to maintain a just society.

. How can examination of previous state practice and policy be used to justify humanitarian intervention?

Previous state practice does not illustrate any successful acts of humanitarian intervention, instead indicating that future acts of intervention need to be more closely regulated by international governing bodies.

Every humanitarian crisis since the Cold War has been met with humanitarian intervention as a response from the international society, and as a result countless deaths through genocide avoided.

State practice since the end of the Cold War suggests that there is a customary right of humanitarian intervention, but not of duty, in response to humanitarian emergencies.

Examples of humanitarian intervention, such as intervention during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, illustrate previous policy that supports the claims to a right of humanitarian intervention.

. In what ways is the case for humanitarian intervention, as outlined in this chapter, limited?

It is not self-evident that individuals do have universal and fundamental human rights.

Advocates of humanitarian intervention exaggerate the extent of global consensus about the use of force to protect human rights.

Any norm endorsing the use of force to protect individual rights could be abused by powerful states.

All of the above

. How might the diversity of the current global international system impact upon the case for humanitarian intervention?

The global political arena is dominated by a paradigm of human security which promotes human security based on core assumptions of what it is to be secure, and which transcend cultural or political diversity.

Despite the inclusion of a diverse range of political actors, whose cultural, ethical, and religious values are often at odds with one another, there exists a general consensus amongst all states that humanitarian intervention is sometimes justified.

The diversity of states, in terms of their cultural, political, ideological, and religious values, results in a global system characterized by radical disagreements on how states should govern themselves and each other. In order to protect this diversity there exist rules of engagement that prohibit interference in the sovereign state, such as humanitarian intervention.

Within the contemporary global arena there are a number of radically different views on how states should govern themselves and each other. In order to protect this diversity, there exists a need for unifying principles of humanitarian intervention.

. What do critics fear would be the result of granting rights of humanitarian intervention?

An abuse of this power in order to wage state-interested wars

A depletion of military resources pursuing wars on ethical grounds, leading to a loss of military security

Whilst some states have proven their ability to conduct 'just' wars in order to protect sound values of democracy and neoliberalism, not all states would use force to pursue such globally beneficial ends.

A lack of implementation of these rights by state actors, leading to a failure to address human rights abuses

. Which of the following is not an assertion made in the realist case against humanitarian interventions?

Humanitarian intervention prioritizes the human as the referent object of security, undermining the state-centric approach of realism.

Foreign intervention reduces the proportion of wars that end in
outright victory; it leaves behind an unstable peace that is likely to reignite.

Foreign intervention tends to prolong wars; it is inappropriate and does not work.

Armed force should only ever be used in the national interest and that humanitarian intervention is therefore imprudent.

. What are the main criticisms of the realist argument against humanitarian intervention?

Realist opposition to humanitarian intervention is based on assumptions that states will protect their citizens.

The realist position overlooks the responsibilities that are inherent to sovereignty.

Critics of humanitarian intervention overlook the wide body of international law relating to basic human rights and the consensus on grave crimes such as genocide.

All of the above

. The concept of R2P rests on three pillars, which of these is not one of them?

The responsibility to rebuild

The responsibility to prevent

The responsibility to protect.

The responsibility to react

. In theorizing the Responsibility to Protect, fundamental questions are raised about the nature of state sovereignty. Regarding this tension between R2P and notions of sovereignty, which of the following is not an accurate statement?

In order to legitimize the inter-state interventions required by R2P, Westphalian notions of sovereignty are invoked, specifically the idea that intervention is required to assure international security.

In order to transcend the intervention-vs.-sovereignty debate, R2P seeks a new definition of sovereignty.

In order to facilitate the deployment of effective humanitarian intervention, the R2P approach redefines the traditional Westphalian conception of sovereignty.

The notion conceptualized by the R2P approach is of a sovereignty that is intrinsically linked with responsibilities and the duty to protect the interests of citizens.

Quiz Content