When does a humanitarian crisis warrant military intervention (this isn't about Syria?)

[PlanetaryOrbit]

Thread for ethical debate:


(Assuming all peaceful/nonviolent measures are ineffective) :


If the Nazis had not invaded any nations, but simply focused on exterminating German Jews in death camps, would that have justified military intervention by the Allies?


If mass genocide takes place strictly within a nation's borders, is it cause for outside armed intervention?


At what point does a nation's (strictly internal) genocide or human rights abuses become another nation's problem?

[MindMover]

1. you should find another planetary orbit ...

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. This is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it?

Are we the world's police or aren't we?

Nobody else has made it clear that they are not going to do anything about anything.

And if it is up to us to expend the blood, why aren't we demanding payment from the rest of the world that wants us to do it?

[Jim__]

3. If we're making the assumption that all peaceful/non-violent measures are ineffective ...

... does that justify the assumption that violent measures are going to be effective? First of all, I think that it will always be an assumption that all peaceful/non-violent measures will be ineffective - that's a very wide range of measures to work through. But, accepting that assumption, at the very least, before any military intervention we need to know what would constitute a successful military intervention, and what is the likelihood of achieving it.

I accept that an internal genocide is a problem for outside nations and those nations should take some action. The assumption that anything but military intervention will be ineffective seems like a nonsensical assumption to me. Military intervention may well make the internal problems even worse.

[JI7]

4. depends on many things including how effective it would be and if it can be worse(iraq)

[El_Johns]

5. If a regime is systematically killing people as under the Nazis, I think that justifies

intervention.

But that's rarely the case, despite the fact that each new intervention is hyped as something akin to it.

The fact is that the US systematically targets some domestic populations for repression:



40% black. Many lose their civil rights forever, even after they've served their time.

Stop & frisk, a racially targeted policy.

A majority of black citizens in Michigan have lost their civil rights due to the "emergency" takeover of majority black cities like Detroit.

We should invade ourselves.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. How would we invade ourselves?

Edit: In my enthusiasm I didn't read the last sentence of your post.

[pampango]

7. From the UN Office on the Prevention of Genocide (Responsibility to Protect)

Prevention requires apportioning responsibility to and promoting collaboration between concerned States and the international community. The duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities lies first and foremost with the State, but the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in article 1 of the Genocide Convention and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the concept of the Responsibility to Protect.

The three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) and formulated in the Secretary-General's 2009 Report (A/63/677) on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect are:

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml

Responsibility to protect

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is an emerging norm that sovereignty is not a right, but that states must protect their populations from mass atrocity crimes—namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The R2P has three foundation "pillars"

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

While R2P is a norm and not a law, it is firmly grounded in international law, especially the laws relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict.[6][7] R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist, i.e. mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VII powers, to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, states, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the R2P process. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect