Principles for Humanitarian Intervention: When Should We Send in the Marines?

The Challenge

No country wants to stand idle while the citizens of another country are oppressed and even killed, sometimes at the hand of their own government. But countries are understandably wary of violating the sovereignty of another nation with military intervention. Bystander countries, including the United States, must shepherd their own resources and attention. No country can intervene everywhere. What principles should guide the United States in determining when to intervene?

What's at Stake

It has been 10 years since the world witnessed genocide in Rwanda, where more than 800,000 women, men, and children were massacred in just weeks. This year, we have witnessed yet another genocide in Darfur, Sudan, where it is believed more than 70,000 women, men, and children have been murdered by the Janjaweed militias or died in refugee camps, and more than 2 million people have been displaced. In both cases, the United States chose not to intervene militarily. Those who favor this more hands-off approach argue that the world is full of countries that are not protecting their own citizens from mass murder, rape, hunger, and genocide-Sierra Leone, comes immediately to mind. Opponents of intervention do not want to see American soldiers sucked into conflicts where the United States does not have an immediate interest and/or an obvious ability to improve the situation. Others counter that, as the world's only superpower, the United States has a duty, born of compassion and prudence, to intervene in trouble spots; at the very least, the United States should provide monetary support to international or regional bodies that could send in peacekeepers. What justifies humanitarian intervention, and who should do it?

Critical Questions

• When, if ever, is it appropriate for states to take coercive-and in particular, military-action against another nation for the purpose of protecting citizens at risk?

• If there is a right to violate the sovereignty of another nation for humanitarian reasons, how and when should it be exercised and under whose authority?

• Does the Untied States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, bear a special responsibility to lead and fund interventions?

• What should be done if and when the United Nations Security Council-to many ,the preferred authority for any intervention-fails to act due to the veto of a single member or due to an unrelated dispute?

November 18, 2004

Back to Ethics Outlook Agenda