Humanitarian Intervention Revisited

By Smith, Michael J. | Harvard International Review, Fall 2000 | Go to article overview

Humanitarian Intervention Revisited

Smith, Michael J., Harvard International Review

Is There a Universal Policy?

By the time we have come to the point of discussing intervention of one kind or another, we are on the edge of failure. The situation has become desperate. Identification, prevention, and deterrence have failed, and we are on the edge of the abyss of genocide--indeed the horror may already have begun. Events have overtaken foreign office contingency plans, diplomatic consultations, Security Council meetings; people are in danger. At this point, we (and who, exactly, constitutes "we" is a point to which I shall return) face a stark choice: acquiescence or action. As ethnic violence rips through the postCold War world, the international community, individual states, and the array of non-governmental organizations will face choices like this. Do we intervene, if necessary with military force, or do we continue to temporize and rationalize our collective inaction?

Most recently, the grim situations in Kosovo and Rwanda provide concrete reminders that the topic concerns real people struggling to survive in desperate situations of conflict. But much about preventing genocide is complex, difficult, and controversial--all the more reason, of course, to keep in mind our central purpose of preventing genocide by whatever means possible. The danger is to turn the imperative of a "creative breakthrough" in world politics into a pious wish expressed by those who live in the safety of a rich and stable state.

Agreeing on Language

The difficulties begin even with language. One may well question how easily one can join the terms "just" and "humanitarian" to the militaristic notion of intervention, redolent as it is of Marines, gunboat diplomacy, or, say, the Vietnam War. That war produced a feast of Orwellian obfuscation: brutal removal and resettlement of villagers became "forced draft urbanization," civilians were bombed and killed if they failed to leave "free-fire zones," and, most famously, the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was more politely called an "incursion." Given Orwell's injunction about clear language--that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity"--and with respect to those with misgivings about the militarized notion of the term, I think justice and lucidity require us to insist on the blunt term of "intervention." Why? Because all too often, more than "humanitarian action" or some form of "peacekeeping" is required. The NATO bombing of Serb positions in Sarajevo in 1995 can only with difficulty be called an "in tercession"; yet I would argue that this military action ("intervention" in plain language) was essential for creating the conditions for the Dayton Peace Accord.

Traditional international law defines "intervention" as "forcible interference in the domestic affairs" of another state. As I have argued elsewhere, it makes most sense to think of intervention as involving a spectrum of possible actions, ranging from mild diplomatic protest to military invasion, even occupation. When we consider forcible action for the purpose of preventing genocide, we may need to do more (or less) than separate presumed combatants. As in Sarajevo, we may need to bomb the positions of one party in an effort not so much to "win" as to change the calculations of one set of actors, to raise the cost of continuing on the path of genocide. We may need to "intercede" with a peacekeeping force until a political settlement is negotiated; but more than this, we may need to monitor procedures and/or establish institutions that follow from negotiation. As in Cambodia, we may need to stay and supervise elections; as in both Bosnia and Rwanda, we may need to establish an International War Crimes Tribu nal. In short, "just humanitarian intervention" can include a whole range of actions occurring over an indeterminate period of time.

There is another difficulty of language: the very meaning and implications of the term "genocide" itself. Because the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide directs its signatories to take action "appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide," states are often reluctant to employ the term even when undertakings that plainly amount to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" are occurring. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)


1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Humanitarian Intervention Revisited


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.