• Yes.
    I would decree that the condition required would be as follows;

    A decision has been passed by a large majority of UN members, maybe 3/4 minimum, to back the intervention.

    The reasons for intervening would only be for human right abuses. What is considered a human rights abuse is where the debate gets tricky. I think Amnesty international can probably document current human right breaches in nearly every country in the world.

    I think only genocide or mass imprisonment/detention of innocent people qualifies for immediate intervention by force. Other issues can surely be discussed at the diplomatic table.

    Therefore, I would not invade Libya or Iraq. Afghanistan might get it though.

  • I agree in principle. But it gets tricky in two places:
    1. What about human rights abuses that have yet to occur? I think you’re arguing they should not be a reason but if our intervention in Libya did stop a massacre in Benghazi then this presents quite a substantial reason for intervention.
    2. What is intervention? Diplomacy, trade and such other ‘soft’ actions could be termed intervention. Assuming this is ok where is the boundary where further intervention is no longer allowed without prior permission? Spying? Advising dissidents within the country? Supplying rebels with weaponry? Or simply physical violence? And if only the latter is it violence ordered by the outside state that counts? Or is it violence carried out by that state’s military?

  • Your first point is not tricky at all, unless we accept the idea that authorities can accurately and indubitably predict the future.
    You can’t intervene before something occurs.

    2. I was only talking about military intervention.

    Diplomatic intervention is allowed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s