Armed Intervention
Armed Intervention Criteria
As the president of the United States you have the burden of analyzing situations across the world that affect your state. Through analyzing these situations you have to come to a peaceful solution or choose armed intervention in order to protect your state. Through looking at the criteria and how they conflict with each other, I can conclude what the criteria for armed intervention would be if I were president of the United States.
There are three different criteria’s set by the United Nations: unilaterally, multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council and multilaterally by regional collective defense action (Viotti & Kauppi, p183). The first criterion is unilaterally for self-defense of one state from another. An example would be if one state is attacked by another, that state can retaliate with an attack. The second criterion is multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council. This criterion is used to “maintain or restore international peace and security” (Viotti & Kauppi, p183). An example of this second criterion is the peacekeeping mission of NATO in Bosnia. The United States joined this peacekeeping mission with the “intention to halt the genocide” (Aruri, p4). The third and final criterion is multilaterally by collective defense action. This means more than two states working defensively together for a common objective in one region. These are the three set criteria’s for armed intervention; they can however conflict with one another.
When considering armed intervention in addition to the three basic criteria’s there are five factors which often are considered. These factors are sovereignty, national interest, human rights, expected net effect on the human condition, and degree of multilaterism.
Armed p3
When these factors come into consideration there can be confliction between the criteria. The criteria of unilaterally for self-defense can conflict with the...
View Full Essay