HumanitarianInterventions have become more prominent as a form for international relationsbetween various countries. This has been especially predominate in post-worldwar era. Humanitarian intervention could be seen as a country using theirresources or influence to help another country or group of people. This couldeasily be seen through two different perspectives which lead to my two theoriesof choice.
My first choice in the theory review is Constructivism and for mysecond choice of the review it is Liberalism. Both can easily describe howhumanitarian intervention related to International relations. Humanitarianinterventions have been the major issues regarding international relations, theway each country react to given situations, how fast they react to thosesituations and who and what they do to the situation. There are two different approachesto humanitarian intervention. ConstructivismEverythingis constructed, from our money to our laws to even the way we see ourselves asa society in hole. To see what is worthy of one nations resources andinfluence, is constructed well within itself.
Constructivism is theInternational relation theory which states that “everything is constructed”meaning there is no concrete form of dealing with another country there is no “right or wrong” regarding the reactions and interactions nations use, thethemselves choose of. The right or authority to use “humanitarian intervention”is a debate on its own and constructed on its own it is up to the nationitself to choose what is valid or not. Even international relations isconstructed, each possible outcome or the actual reality Constructivism ischaracterized by an emphasis on the importance of normative as well as materialstructures, on the role of identity in shaping political action and on themutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill, S.2004, 189). “Constructivism”mostly coined in the post-cold war era, humanitarian intervention has notalways been so benevolent when in reality the use of international relationsregarding humanitarian intervention has been constructed by those whom createdand constructed these institutions. The morals that nations often sought out todefend and protect are constructed themselves, Dennis Moberg definesconstructivism as the thesis that our minds do not mirror experience orreality. Rather, our minds project and reconstitute experience (Moberg, D.
2011, 110). Humanitarian Intervention andConstructivismConstructingwithin itself, led to the construction of NATO, UN and the EU. This was simplymade to influence the views and the view point of other people which wereconstructed, none of these organizations were meant to be but just are anotherform of a construct by a construct. The countries that made these organizationsweren’t made for helping the humanitarian cause. The countries that were evenmade were just made and could be undone. What was happening in regards tohumanitarian intervention is just what is made of it, the outcome is just aconstruct of what was chosen and made by a lineup of choices.
The situation initself was just simply made because of a bunch of choices that were alreadychosen. Nothing was naturally caused but was simply just a product of theprevious choices. Thisis just trying to limit Anarchy when in reality anarchy is just what you makeof it and what you do with the given situation and hoe you act and react to thegiven situation. Everything is just in context to each other the situationcould have easily been different if the choices were different. In regards tothe humanitarian intervention and hot it is used into international relationsis just within itself how the current situation is constructed.
How thesituation affects a given construct that was just out of it’s grasp from the beginning.LiberalismHumanitarianIntervention has been defined as military intervention in a state, without the approvalof its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing widespread suffering ordeath among the inhabitants (Roberts, A. 1993, 426).
It is the duty of thosemore fortunate to help those that are in tougher situations. Spreading hope andjoy through democracy and influencing those developing, leaders of the freeworld are supposed to help the others, just like an older sibling is there tohelp and lead the younger sibling, we are the leaders of the world and we arehere to lead and pave the way for many other people. It is our responsibilityto protect those misfortunate those who need it, this is not an option but a directnecessity. This is our right and our duty this soon has been adopted as R2P. R2Pis defined as the responsibility of states as well as of the internationalcommunity to protect civilians from human rights violations. This is a protection of human rights andhumanity itself, if we cannot be counted to do the right thing than who elseare we supposed to expect to do the moral and right thing regarding to thehumanity of people.
It is sometimes and necessary to bring military force if itmeans that atrocities will be diminished or stopped at once, it is okay to sacrificeif this means it will be for the better good, and overall good for the society.If using military force to guard from harm’s way such as genocide or crimes againsthumanity. All this power or responsibility should not be taken lightly thusthere should be a global international power to help distinguish what and what isn’tnecessary in regards to military force or presence. Such as the United Nations,a collective of nation that have the same general ideas and perspectives whenit comes to human rights and the same overall goal within humanity. Anotherexample of this type of collective would be the EU an organization specific toa region, this limits tensions since they all have a stake in regards to oneanother. If one nation is in conflict or are recognizing a humanitarian crisisit’s an easy way to have the influence and help of others. These organizationshelp bring stability and a stable presence to those that are in need of it.
Humanitarian intervention R2P andLiberalism NATOis an example of the use of humanitarian intervention as a form of internationalrelations it is a collective of likeminded nations using what they have incommon to help influence and advise other countries to make the best decisions thatwill mutually benefit both parties, It is possible for these collectives to be neutralmeanwhile benefiting both parties.Thecreation of the UN helps bring the idea of Liberalism, this idea of aninternational organization that helps describe and helps identify what is inneed of helping, frankly it is humanitarian crisis that are bonding these countriesthe way each countries interact with each other it is a countries duties tohelp bend and use their resources, not only does the UN use its resources tothose in need but it also helps bring other issues as the table TheEU is another example of using its resources as mutually benefiting without causingand hurt to the other countries such as investing into infrastructure it alsobrings attention to what has been needed to be payed attention to. Without theEU the entirety of Europe would be disconnected after World War 2 there hasn’tbeen a single conflict since each country has been interconnected and haveintertwined from one another. ConclusionThroughoutmy research in this ping pong match of ideologies that was my research duringthis theory review I have found things that I have both enjoyed and disliked inboth of these theories, roughly there are both faults and assets. Inregards to Constructivism I do feel like this is a modern approach to seeinternational relations and humanitarian intervention, it does acknowledge thatbasically everything is constructed and that essentially we live on a spectrumthat can be altered or changes based on what is constructed. I personallyreally loved this approach it gave me a sense of peace and tranquility knowingthat anything that has been constructed could be easily deconstructed. My faulton this view is that it leaves with more questions than actual answers, which doesn’thelp when trying to find a solution in regards to a problem which humanitarianIntervention is essentially a big ball of unanswered questions.Liberalismdrew to me naively since I am a self-proclaimed “Liberal” even in lecture I didagree with quite a few of the main Liberalism IR points, I do believe thathaving an organization that tries to keep some of the horrible atrocities calm,which does seem soothing and calming knowing that there are people listeningand paying attention to those violence’s.
I also do believe that people areborn with certain rights that cannot be take away and there should be peopletrying to protect those rights. However as much as I read I did feel that it isvery hard for people especially nations to keep their biased opinions andmotives from helping in Humanitarian Intervention nothing is supposed to bethat simple, by a nation interfering with another nations issues there has tobe another motive involved, no one will do anything for free. Another problem Ihave with Liberalism is that I do feel that it is very Eurocentric it isforcing other nations to choose and play whatever role the major characterswant them to play. OverallI do feel like I do favor one over the other, I do enjoy and like learning aboutConstructivism, the whole world is living on a spectrum.
Nothing is concreteand It can easily be diminished I feel like this theory doesn’t force anythingon anyone is simply just stating the facts, money is constructed, countries isconstructed everything is constructed I find solace in knowing that anythingthat can be created can be altered and changed. Burchill, S. (2013). Theories ofinternational relations. (5th ed. / Scott Burchill …
ed.).Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Werhane, P., Hartman, H., Moberg,L., Englehardt, P., Pritchard, D.
, & Parmar, E. (2011). SocialConstructivism, Mental Models, and Problems of Obedience. Journal of BusinessEthics, 100(1), 103-118.Angstrom, J. (2009).
Book ReviewEssay: Transformative Learning through Globalization of World Politics: • JohnBaylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds) The Globalization of WorldPolitics, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 745 pp. ISBN13-978-0-19-929777-1. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(2), 231-240.Holsti, K. (2004). HumanitarianIntervention and International Relations (Book Review).
International Journal,59(3), 739-741.Burchill, Scott. Theories ofInternational Relations, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central,https://ebookcentral.
proquest.com/lib/kingston/detail.action?docID=296496.Burchill, Scott; Linklater,Andrew; Devetak, Richard; Donnelly, Jack; Paterson, Matthew; Reus-Smit,Christian; True, Jacqui. (2009).
Theories of International Relations. PalgraveMacmillan.Fluck, M.
(2010). Truth, Valuesand the Value of Truth in Critical International Relations Theory. Millennium,39(2), 259-278.
Adam Roberts, ‘Humanitarian War:Military Intervention and Human Rights’, International Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 3, July 1993, p. 426.