In the recent past, the debate on the ethics and justice of military intervention in abroad has significantly gained fame. While other significant other argues against military intervention, others are is support of it. Since the world war and other security-threatening activities such as the September 11th, 2001 attack, the legality, and justice of the military intervention have become popular among many people (Coady 2005, p.14). Some people supporting it while others such as the humanitarian groups strongly oppose the intervention as they believe that it, as it is not specific in nature in matters regarding which country and when is a military intervention act justified. Despite this shortcoming, the military intervention has proved to be effective in securing the US against terror attacks as well as reducing insecurity threats; therefore, military intervention is justified.
Firstly, the United Nation Chatter under the Chapter VII provides the legality of military intervention in abroad nations. Under this chapter a country is entitled to military invention whenever the government is facing a threat from the international community, and therefore, it is the role of the nation to protect its peace through the military intervention procedures (Stearman 2007, p. 84). In this case, the country is mandated with the duty of developing, measures that will effectively restore international peace and security in case the nation faces a security threat, a breach of the peace agreement, or other aggressive threats. Under the united nation article 39, the government military intervention strategies are justified whenever the state's security is at stake (Stearman 2007, p. 84), in this case, the military intervention approaches are viewed as appropriate means to achieve a nation as well as global peace and safety. Under the international law, the law indicates that the actions of a country to achieve self- defense are justified; therefore, military interventions are justified under this laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, US Army intervention is also justified under the realism theory which states on the importance of a nation employing the military action to maintain economic as well as political dominance (Jokic’ 2003, p.104). For example, in 2003, the US invention in Iraq in an attempt to fight against the terrorism and protect the nation from a terror attack such as in the case of September 11th, 2001 attack which claimed many American lives and led to many physical injuries (Coady 2005, p.14) . If the nation peace and security is facing threats, the military actions are justified abroad despite the violation of the other state's sovereignty. Additionally, in an attempt to secure the US economic benefits and dominance, the nation was also interested in Iraq due to its oil supply and geographical area which will enable the US to benefit economically. A nation's acts to promote and secure their political, military and economic interest and dominance are justified under military intervention which will, in turn, enhance international relations. In this case, the US military intervention is justified under the realism which justifies military intervention as an act in which a nation carries out to protect its political, military, social, as well as economic interest and dominances.
Also, the international relation theory of liberalism also justifies military intervention by indicating that different nations can come together to maximize on their prosperity as they work against their common conflicts (Saunders 2011, p. 52). In this case, numerous nations’ military interventions are justified when the nations collaborate to achieve success while limiting disputes between nations. For example, the US and China are working together to maximize the economic benefits of the two countries while trying to reduce disputes between the nations on variations of culture and working together against the terrorist who might affect the economic well-being of the nations. Additionally, military intervention to bring about the improved relationship has been viewed as through the promotion of peace by targeting common threats can be justified under the liberalism theory which emphasizes the importance of different nations is working together and reducing conflicts between the nations.
The theory of Marxist also justifies military intervention whereby the developed states in their attempt to maintain their political and economic powers by exploring the developing nations. In this case, the US army intervention practices are justified as the nation attempts to explore the resources found in the developing countries such as oil in return the developing countries develop dependency in the developed nation, which in turn enables the developed nations to acquire and maintain their political as well as military power (Durward and Marsden 2009,p.69). Over the years, the US have enjoyed the super power title which is significantly shaped by the nation's military superiority which the US always have to protect as to continue enjoying the military dominance and to increase the developing countries' dependency in the US for military support ((Stearman 2007,p. 87).
Conclusively, from the above discussion it is clear that military intervention procedures are justified under the different situation and by various nations as well as international laws. Despite the hit debate on issues that surround the justification of military intervention, military intervention has proved to reduce terrorist attacks such as in the case of the US, enhance international relations, and enable the nation to continue enjoying their political, social, economic as well as military. Lastly, military interventions have proved to allow countries to work together as opposed to interfering with other nation's sovereignty powers.
References
COADY, C. A. J. (2005). Righteous violence: the ethics and politics of military intervention . Carlton, Vic, Melbourne Univ. Press. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0627/2005412596-b.html .
DURWARD, R., & MARSDEN, L. (2009). Religion, conflict, and military intervention . Farnham, Surrey [u.a.], Ashgate.
JOKIĆ, A. (2003). Humanitarian intervention: moral and philosophical issues . Peterborough, Ont, Broadview Press. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/405096 .
SAUNDERS, E. N. (2011). Leaders at war: how presidents shape military interventions . Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
STEARMAN, K. (2007). The debate about military intervention . New York, NY, Rosen Central.
