Dilemma of humanitarian military intervention

No issue is more contentious in the human rights world than that of humanitarian military intervention for purposes of preventing or stopping human rights violations. Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, Libya, and now Syria all present the conundrum in its many forms. Thanks to the United Nations' 2005 declaration on the “Responsibility to Protect,” the international community now at least has some formal criteria to apply when making decisions about intervention. However, this tactic is still highly controversial, not only for the collateral damage any military action can cause, but also because intervention is sometimes seen as having been put at the service of “the West” in the pursuit of less-than-pure motives. However, for me, having served as executive director of Amnesty International USA from 1994 to 2006 and having witnessed genocides up close, it is not easy to entirely rule military intervention off the table. This presentation will explore the dilemma with special focus on issues of the appropriate circumstances under which intervention is justified; the authority that is required; the dangers inherent in such action, including the health consequences for local populations, and alternatives to the use of force.