Do you think that severe abuses of human rights justify the use of force?

I define the use of force as military interventions. It does not necessarily mean that a fight or conflict must occur between the force that came to intervene and the perpetrator. The use of force can be referring to the simple presence of a force which I believe carries a symbolic significance in most cases. The intervention could be carried out unilaterally by a single state without international approval or an coalition/alliance of states or a single state with official international sanction from a multilateral organisation such as the UN.

I believe that the use of force is justifed if all other peaceful means of settling a dispute or solving a human rights crisis have been exhausted. That is, even though the use of force in a situation be deemed illegal, it is still justifiable. In other words, a foreign military force could be deployed into a country if the human rights of the people in that country were being severly abused. Having said that, I believe sanctions and embargoes are not at all effective in some cases.

So, what do you think?

Best wishes,

PBF
1 2
Well, there is something in what you say. But only if it really approved by the world community.

I still don't believe that bombing Yugoslavia was adequate. I think the simple separation of the sides would have been much better. I regard is as an act of agression. The same in Iraq. It's an invasion - a lot of people were killed and are being killed. Isn't is the abuse of human rights too?

And what is even worse - when the force is used against the religious groups y the troops of other religoin. It may be regarded as a declaration of religious war.

The UN pace keeping forses can be used for separation, but the forces of NATO - are the forses of invasion - they bomb, destroy and kill no matter what President Bush says.
Thank you for your reply Nick. I really appreciate it.

Firstly, when you said 'the world community', do you mean the United Nations? I won't say that I am in a position to debate on the Kosovo crisis as I have not yet had the time to learn what really happened but as far as I am concerned, NATO did not have the backings of the UN Security Council to use force in Yugoslavia. However, I must say that severe abuses of human rights did occur before NATO's intervention and a cease-fire agreement negotiated had broken down before NATO began a series of aerial bombardment in 1999. I should come back to this later when I have done more research on Yugoslavia and particularly Kosovo.

As to the US-led 20-March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the main rationale offered by the U.S President and his allies at the begining of the war was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction which I believe was invalid as no weapons of such were found afterwards. In other words, severe abuses of human rights were not at all the main reason why they invaded Iraq so it would be inappropriate and irrelavent for your to use this as an example regarding the notion of this thread. Besides, the invasion of Iraq was deemed illegal from the United Nations point of view in accordance to the United Nations Charter as the former United Naitons Secretary-General Kofi Annon has said [1] .

Thanks again for offering us your opinion. It is really helpful and interesting to know what others think of this.

Best wishes,

PBF
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
In such case the abuse of human right can be found in any country. And then will it be an excuse for using the force? In all the countries there are minorities who think that they are deprived of some rights? Do you think it's right for Russia to use fors against Estonia for discriminating the Russian speaking citizens?

No, we have already had enough of war! But there are countries that dream of using the forse. Do you think that Iran won't be the next target for the US. Though it has nothing to do with human rights. I think that using force is the worst abuse of human rights itself.
If we had the ability to separate two warring groups, that would be great. Currently, we don't have the ability to put a dome of peace over the groups, and give them a time out until they stop fighting. Sometimes, the only way to stop violent people is by using violent means.
Old Man Gordon, and do you think that it's a correct way? I rather doubt it.

But the only thng I am sure of that violence will bring violence in response.

I can approve of violence only in one case - when it is used to defent your own country. In this case the invaders should be killed. The only way for them to avoid being killed is to go back home. And noone has the right to teach the other nations the laws they think best (the laws of the stronger one)
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Correct way? Maybe not. It's the unfortunate last resort when one group refuses to listen to reason. Dew, what if the US hadn't invaded Vichy France?
Hi Nick and thanks again for giving us your opinion. Emotion: smile

In such case the abuse of human right can be found in any country. And then will it be an excuse for using the force? In all the countries there are minorities who think that they are deprived of some rights? Do you think it's right for Russia to use fors against Estonia for discriminating the Russian speaking citizens?

First, I was talking about severe abuses of human rights; not any abuse of human rights. Second, I am sorry but I am not sure which incident you were referring to when you said "Russia to use fors against Estonia for discriminating the Russian speaking citizens".
No, we have already had enough of war! But there are countries that dream of using the forse. Do you think that Iran won't be the next target for the US. Though it has nothing to do with human rights. I think that using force is the worst abuse of human rights itself.


I agree with you that we have already had enough war however, as I said in my first post, the use of force does not necessarily mean war; it could be the simple presence of an armed force in another country. The armed force could be UN Peacekeeping force. Anyway, I am not sure if Iran will be the next target of the U.S. though the President George W Bush declared Iran as part of an "axis of evil" in 2002 and internation sanctions have been imposed on Iran because of its failure in halting uranium enrichment [1] . However, the sanction imposed by the United Nations Security Council did not authorise the use of force thus I don't think U.S will use military force against Iran because of this if it doesn't want another invasion be deemed illeagal again. It is interesting to see that the U.S. "is waging an undeclared financial war on Iran as part of efforts to persuade the Tehran government to abandon alleged plans to acquire nuclear weapons" according to the BBC news[2] .

To Old Man Gorden,
I agree that the use of force is unfortunately the last resort in solving a human rights crisis in some circumstances.

Best wishes,

PBF

[Edited]

PeaceblinkfriendDo you think that severe abuses of human rights justify the use of force?

The intervention could be carried out unilaterally by a single state without international approval or an coalition/alliance of states or a single state with official international sanction from a multilateral organisation such as the UN.

I believe that the use of force is justifed if all other peaceful means of settling a dispute or solving a human rights crisis have been exhausted. That is, even though the use of force in a situation be deemed illegal, it is still justifiable. In other words, a foreign military force could be deployed into a country if the human rights of the people in that country were being severly abused. Having said that, I believe sanctions and embargoes are not at all effective in some cases.

So, what do you think?

Best wishes,

I dont think that foreign intervention ameliorates the situation rather it experates it and makes life a hell as is seen in Iraq. However, if a strata of society / Community starts to wipe out another society of the same country on the basis of caste creed colour or religion, it is the joint responsibility of the comity of nations to stop that particular society, not preferably through the use of force but through other means.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more