HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: FINDING OUT ITS HUMAN SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

This article examines the concept and practice of "humanitarian intervention" through the specific lens of its implications for "human security." It critiques the traditional, state-centric debate on intervention, which has often focused on the legal question of sovereignty versus the right to intervene. The study argues that the primary benchmark for assessing any intervention should be its actual impact on the security and well-being of the individuals and communities it is intended to protect. The research provides a critical assessment of the mixed record of past interventions, such as those in Somalia, Bosnia, and Libya. The paper explores how, in some cases, military interventions have had unintended negative consequences that have undermined the long-term human security of the population, even when they have been successful in their immediate humanitarian objectives. The analysis concludes that a human security approach provides a more rigorous and ethically-grounded framework for making the difficult decisions about when and how to intervene.

The doctrine of "humanitarian intervention"—the use of military force to protect people from mass atrocities—is one of the most controversial issues in international relations. This paper provides a critical assessment of this practice, not from the perspective of state sovereignty, but from the perspective of its impact on the human security of the affected population. The study begins by outlining the core tenets of the human security approach, which prioritizes the "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" of individuals. The core of the article is an application of this lens to the practice of military intervention. It argues that a successful intervention is not one that simply overthrows a tyrannical regime, but one that leaves behind a society that is more secure and more capable of protecting its own citizens in the long run. The paper uses a range of case studies to illustrate the immense challenges of achieving this goal. It analyzes how interventions can sometimes create a security vacuum, leading to civil war and state collapse, as was the case in Libya. It also explores the difficult "day after" challenges of post-conflict peacebuilding and reconstruction, which are often under-resourced and poorly planned. The findings suggest that the track record of humanitarian intervention in actually improving long-term human security is deeply problematic. The paper concludes not with a blanket rejection of intervention, but with a call for a much higher threshold for its use and a much greater and more sustained commitment to the long-term task of post-conflict recovery.