International Military Interventions

This paper explores the literature and arguments surrounding the U.S.-led intervention into Iraq in 2003 with justifications offered for an international intervention into Darfur, Sudan today. The question posed is whether the conditions in Iraq leading up to U.S. intervention are comparable to those in Darfur currently and, therefore, whether they require similar armed military intervention. The paper concludes that the situations are dissimilar and only the conditions in Darfur mandate and authorize intervention.

To answer the question, the paper looked at the regional and geo-political history of Iraq and Sudan, primarily to explore the historic scope of the humanitarian and/or military turmoil experienced by these countries and previous attempts to address them. This allows for an identification of the political relationships between these countries and the countries likely to be primarily involved in such an intervention, namely the United States, and to a lesser extent, Great Britain.

The paper also explores the conditions in Iraq and the Sudan at the moment of such interventions. These conditions are important because they may provide the legal basis for armed military intervention, even in the absence of an immediate military threat to international security. That distinction is important because it has historically been the basis for armed intervention. However, Iraq and the Sudan diverge from this tradition in that neither arg

. . .
Sudan and Chad for specific recommendations, although it does aim recommendations at the United Nations, the European Union, and the Arab League. This decision is based largely on the report's conclusion that the situation in Darfur is governed by the laws of armed conflict applicable to non-international (essentially domestic) conflicts even though it has international ramifications and a significant number of the displaced have crossed the border into Chad. In particular, Human Rights Watch (HRW) points to Geneva Convention Common Article 3, which prohibits attacks by those engaged in the conflict on civilians or others not taking part in the hostilities. HRW points out that acts of murder, humiliation, degradation, rape, other forms of sexual abuse, and pillage and destruction of civilian property have all been documented against non-combatants in Darfur in violation of Common Article 3. HRW also notes that the use of starvation of civilians as a combat method in Darfur is illegal under the Convention, which prohibits starvation of civilians intended to annihilate or weaken civilians. Gberie, Lansana. Defence & Arms: A Test Case for Humanitarian Intervention. Ocnus.Net 24 September 2004. . . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Intervention OcnusNet, Iraq Sudan, Ottaway Lacina, War Reader, Geneva Conventions, Feinstein Slaughter, Darfur Buchanan, Security Council, Saddam Hussein, Ottoway Lacina, intervention iraq, human rights, humanitarian intervention, situation darfur, humanitarian interventions, intervention darfur, international community, military intervention, us-led intervention iraq, international law, us-led intervention, individual human rights, human rights watch, armed military intervention, us-led action iraq,
Approximate Word count = 3279
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)

More Essays on International Military Interventions