8.7B - Governments, IGOs and NGOs
Interventions are promoted by IGOs, national governments and NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), but there is seldom consensus about the validity of these interventions.
IGOs
The legal case for intervention is complex:
- international law normally prohibits one sovereign state intervening in the internal affairs of another
- it can take place if the state being intervened in has committed an act of aggression on another sovereign state
- however, the UN Charter and UDHR provide grounds for intervention without external aggression, if human rights abuses are widespread and there is a humanitarian crisis (health, safety and wellbeing of large amount of people under threat)
- the UN Security Council can authorise intervention if all five permanent members of the Security Council agree
The UN effectively has the right to intervene to protect people, although there is a view ('responsibility to protect'), that argues that organisations such as the UN have a responsibility to intervene. This view is more proactive, and would lead to more interventions than is currently the case.
Governments
NGOs
In the 21st century, human rights violations are front-page news. The internet, mobile phone cameras, social media and platforms such as YouTube mean human rights abuses can be documented like never before. There are several NGOs that campaign solely on human rights.
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
- Founded in 1961
- Headquarters in London
- A mass-membership organisation funded by members and supporters, that promotes direct action such as protests, letter writing and campaigning.
Human Rights Watch
- Founded in 1978
- Headquarters in New York
- Largely funded by wealthy individuals, it puts pressure on governments to take action and intervene.
Debate over validity of consensus
There is often widespread agreement between governments, NGOs and IGOs (UN) that human rights abuses have occurred, such as:
However, there is often disagreement about the scale of the abuses and the extent to which they justify intervention. Even when the case for intervention is very strong, this may not happen due to lack of consensus (widespread agreement).
- The 2015-18 Rohingya refugee crisis in Burma, involving the persecution of the Muslim Rohingya nation in Rakhine State by the Burmese government military forces
- The Bosnian genocide of Muslim men and boys that took place during the 1992-5 Bosnian War
- The genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda by Hutu forces in 1994
- The forced seclusion and ill-treatment of women during the Taliban regime in Afghanistan 1996-2001
However, there is often disagreement about the scale of the abuses and the extent to which they justify intervention. Even when the case for intervention is very strong, this may not happen due to lack of consensus (widespread agreement).
- NGOs have little power to intervene, unless they are invited to by a sovereign state, or they are protected by the forces of another
- the UN has no military forces of its own: it relies on member states providing and funding these
- Geography might make intervention technically very difficult: land-locked countries, dense jungle, lack of air-strips to land personnel and supplies
- Geopolitical considerations may prevent interventions. These include the risks that intervention could lead to wider conflict, or different sides of a conflict being allied to opposing powerful countries, e.g. the USA and Russia.
