The day was April 7, 1994, a tragic mass murder started in Rwanda. Many innocent people of the Tutsi, a group of people in Rwanda, died from the Hutu people killing them off to take back their “dominance”. This bad blood between the two groups started because of Belgian colonialism in the 1950s. The Belgians favored the Tutsi more than the Hutu which made the latter feel like they don’t have the power that they had before the colonials came. The incident caused Hutus to start a revolution that started in the end of 1959 which killed hundreds of Tutsis. Eventually in 1962, Rwanda gained independence but 120,000 people moved to neighboring countries to escape the violence. This caused the rise of Hutus getting back their dominating power. The
…show more content…
A state should not put sovereignty over human lives are at stake, it could cause disunity among other states and cause even more destruction. According to the Oxford Biography the meaning of intervention is stated as “Commonly defined as interference in the territory or domestic affairs of another state with military force, typically in a way that compromises a sovereign government’s control over its own territory and population” (Silverstone, 2011). Intervention among states is a risky situation and has been debatable for hundreds of years because it deals with the importance of sovereignty or the power of the government. There are two different types of intervention actions: multilateral and unilateral. Multilateral is when more than one state is intervening and unilateral is when one state is intervening. The International Institutions can be involved, like the United Nations but it will take longer for the intervening and they don’t take sides. For example, in the Rwandan genocide situation, it took a while for the UN to arrive and inforce the peacemaking but they were too late. Multilateral actions can be useful when it comes to intervening when there’s a huge problem with a state because the state can get more benefits like more exposure to the world and charities to help out. Plus, it’s less expensive since more than …show more content…
It is inhuman to just watch a country suffer and do nothing, it’s like being a bystander when someone you know is in trouble. Actors should have the option to intervene with some pressure, but not a lot. When you’re under pressure, the result can be either inadequate or successful. We all need pressure sometimes. Too much pressure given while making a decision dealing with intervention can end with a bad turn. For example, the war in Iraq was not a necessary intervention. It just made the problems even worse since it wasn’t needed.
The IR theories approach intervention in different ways. From a realist approach, they won’t approach it unless they can get something out of it since they believe mortality is power. With liberalism, intervention is a must because it’s the moral thing to do. Liberalist believe in peace over war, they even put mortality over war. Constructivist may intervene only if the state is their friend. No other reason but that. Lastly, from the Marxism approach, intervention would happen if there’s economic power and
A state should not put sovereignty over human lives are at stake, it could cause disunity among other states and cause even more destruction. According to the Oxford Biography the meaning of intervention is stated as “Commonly defined as interference in the territory or domestic affairs of another state with military force, typically in a way that compromises a sovereign government’s control over its own territory and population” (Silverstone, 2011). Intervention among states is a risky situation and has been debatable for hundreds of years because it deals with the importance of sovereignty or the power of the government. There are two different types of intervention actions: multilateral and unilateral. Multilateral is when more than one state is intervening and unilateral is when one state is intervening. The International Institutions can be involved, like the United Nations but it will take longer for the intervening and they don’t take sides. For example, in the Rwandan genocide situation, it took a while for the UN to arrive and inforce the peacemaking but they were too late. Multilateral actions can be useful when it comes to intervening when there’s a huge problem with a state because the state can get more benefits like more exposure to the world and charities to help out. Plus, it’s less expensive since more than …show more content…
It is inhuman to just watch a country suffer and do nothing, it’s like being a bystander when someone you know is in trouble. Actors should have the option to intervene with some pressure, but not a lot. When you’re under pressure, the result can be either inadequate or successful. We all need pressure sometimes. Too much pressure given while making a decision dealing with intervention can end with a bad turn. For example, the war in Iraq was not a necessary intervention. It just made the problems even worse since it wasn’t needed.
The IR theories approach intervention in different ways. From a realist approach, they won’t approach it unless they can get something out of it since they believe mortality is power. With liberalism, intervention is a must because it’s the moral thing to do. Liberalist believe in peace over war, they even put mortality over war. Constructivist may intervene only if the state is their friend. No other reason but that. Lastly, from the Marxism approach, intervention would happen if there’s economic power and