: Do States Have a Right to Go to War to Defend Their Citizens of Other States Against Their Own Government? What Are the Implications of Your Answer for the Future of the International World Order of States? Illustrate
: DO STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO WAR TO DEFEND THEIR CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR ANSWER FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER OF STATES? ILLUSTRATE YOUR ARGUMENT WITH REFERENCE TO AT LEAST TWO CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES OF ACTUAL OR PROPOSED “HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS”.
In the introduction there is going to be an analysis of the question which involves identifying and defining key words. Furthermore, a brief background is included in order to show how war should not be taken for granted as it has caused many negative effects to the world at large. Finally there is the * explanation of Jus ad bellum which is right intention. The author argues for the assertion that states have the right to go to war to defend the citizens of other countries against their own government. The author is going to use the Rwandan genocide and the civil war in Libya as contemporary examples of actual or proposed humanitarian intervention.
The author shall argue that states do have the right to go to war to defend the citizens of other states against their own government because if the attack is to occur in their country one would request for assistance from other countries to intervene, calm and resolve the situation (Gelven, 1994, p.78). Libya is a nation under the leadership of Muammar al-Gaddafi for a long time, to which rebels revolted against him and it resulted into a civil war (Regan, 1996 p. 122).
The author shall also discuss Jus ad bellum’s criteria which is right intention, determines the root of the human intervention within a war. “To add, right intention paves the way on the right reasons to go to war. However other criteria’s such as last resort prolong the way in which war can be stopped, thus escalates humanitarian disaster. Just cause worsens the situation and it is often not transparent from the outside. Proportionality expected harms must not exceed at the expense of the loss of humans.