Paper Example on Military Intervention

Introduction

In the wake of continued intentional killings of civilians by states, the international community came up with interventions to stop these genocides. Military intervention is one of the measures that have been used in the global political landscape. However, while the response has been effective in some instances, it has failed in others. As such, various studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy of military intervention, as well as other forms of interventions. Some studies have also criticized the use of humanitarian interventions and argued that they might not be effective in mitigating genocidal violence. Therefore, to analyze some of the scholarly works, this paper will provide a brief description of the main arguments of the works of three authors and discuss how their works relate to each other. It will further explain how the studies help answer different questions about military interventions and political violence

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans by Alan J. Kuperman

The author argues that the international community uses humanitarian intervention to avert genocidal violence because it is a plausible method. However, the method might not be as effective as some military experts may argue it often has unintended consequences. In explaining the impact of the emerging norm (humanitarian intervention) in the context of moral hazard, the article points out that while the focus of the international community might be to protect vulnerable groups against state-sponsored killings or ethnic cleansing, the intervention might unintentionally foster rebellion by promoting irresponsibility among the warring factions , resulting into further violence (Kuperman 2008). Humanitarian intervention includes various actions such as rhetorical condemnation, economic sanctions, deployment of peacekeepers, and deployment of military troops that are motivated by the desire to protect civilians from state violence. The motivation of humanitarian intervention determines how it will be interpreted by observers. The problem of moral hazard is experienced in situations where the humanitarian response is forceful because in situations where the conflict is between the state and sub-state actors, the intervener gives the sub-state actors the incentive to continue fighting back. This exacerbates the conflicts thereby jeopardizing the peace and stability intentions that motivate interventions.

The author explains that the response of the state to a rebellion and that of the non-state actor in launching a rebellious attack is based on moral hazard, which is described as the expectation of humanitarian intervention. When a country faces rebellion, it will consider the impact of its action before the international community before any action is taken. On the other hand, the target of state violence will consider the humanitarian intervention before reiterating because in most case, the response is usually against the state. The study points out that humanitarian intervention increases the moral hazard because the insurgent group would continue fighting back and the perpetrator will attack back. As such, civilian killings are likely to continue if the provocative rebellion is not averted. Although the author acknowledges that humanitarian intervention is well-intentioned, he also argues that it could be counter-productive where the rebels consider it as a chance to win against the state (Kuperman 2008). Therefore, to ensure humanitarian intervention does not promote moral hazard, the author suggests that potential interveners should use reforms that do not encourage either state violence or reiteration from rebels.

International Intervention and Severity of Genocides and Politicides by Mathew Krain

The study examines the effectiveness of military intervention following intervention failure of the international community in averting state-sponsored violence against citizens. Interstate conflicts differ, and, as such, interventions have differential effects. The author focuses on the impact of the intervention on genocides and politicides, in particular, the duration and severity of the conflict. Although some intervention models have been found to be ineffective, the study argues that remaining aloof on a given conflict means the situation would not be controlled, but it would help escalate the killings. It also challenges other forms of intervention such as neutral interventions and aiding the perpetrator because they do not reduce the severity of the violence. The author further argues that interventions that likely reduce the severity of state-sponsored mass murder are those that directly challenge the perpetrator or provide support to the target (Krain 2005). In his conclusion, the author concludes that the most effective humanitarian intervention that will oppose, restrain, and disarm perpetrators of genocidal violence is to challenge them or aid the target of state-sponsored killings directly.

Delegating Death: Military Intervention and Government Killing by Jacqueline H.R. DeMeritt

While the focus of the existing research is on the efficacy of international actors to avert genocidal violence, this study examines the ability of interveners to prevent the killing from emerging and escalating. The author conceptualizes the process and decision of a state to conduct mass murder as a principal-agent problem, where the government is the principal responsible for making policies and the perpetrator is the agent. According to the author, both the principal and the agent have their motivations, and there is a possibility that the agent may deviate from the principal's order, which creates the principal-agent problem (DeMeritt 2015). The motivation of governments and perpetrators of genocidal violence could be the need to retain power and protect their freedom. State leaders violate the rights of citizens for them to achieve desired political goals. The interaction between governments and potential perpetrators influences the occurrence of civilian killing because both the principal and the agent have an incentive to achieve their objectives. However, perpetrators care about the consequences of their actions because the international community punishes individual actors (DeMeritt 2015). Therefore, the author supports the argument that external military intervention can prevent and limit genocidal violence.

How the Readings Relate

All three articles address the issue of international intervention during the genocidal violence. They discuss the effectiveness of military intervention and how efficacy can be improved. However, the authors differ in various aspects of their arguments. While Krain (2005) argues that intervention that directly challenges the perpetrator and supports the target is the most effective strategy in conflict resolution, Kuperman (2008) differs that humanitarian intervention could escalate genocidal violence due to the problem of moral hazard. Mainly, moral hazard results from the insurgent group expecting support from international actors.

Controlling on the issue of moral hazard, Kuperman also feels that military intervention is an effective method in preventing and reducing mass murder. DeMeritt, on the other hand, agrees with Krain's arguments that the most effective intervention model is directly challenging the government that perpetrates violence against unarmed civilians. However, the author argues that international actors should evaluate the process that leads to the killing and create policies that will prevent it from occurring (DeMeritt 2015). Therefore, all the authors agree that in the presence of workable reforms, international intervention can be effective in addressing the issue of state-sponsored violence conflict-prone countries.

Overall, the articles elucidate how the international intervention can help avert genocidal violence by providing examples from countries that have been ravaged by internal conflicts in the past. They have provided empirical evidence showing the efficacy of different intervention models. For instance, Krain has discussed different models and examined their effectiveness. Krain's study answers the question as to why have observers previously doubted the use of various interventions to quell conflicts. Kuperman, on the other hand, basing his argument on the moral hazard, has examined circumstances in which humanitarian intervention might not be sufficient to solve internal political disturbances. DeMeritt has agreed with the other authors that international intervention has the potential to reduce killings because perpetrators fear international punishment. Therefore, the three articles give an affirmative answer the question as to whether interventions should continue to be used to avert state-sponsored violence or not.

Reference List

DeMeritt, J.H., 2015. Delegating death: Military intervention and government killing. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(3), pp.428-454.

Krain, M., 2005. International intervention and the severity of genocides and politicides. International Studies Quarterly, 49(3), pp.363-387.

Kuperman, A.J., 2008. The moral hazard of humanitarian intervention: Lessons from the Balkans. International Studies Quarterly, 52(1), pp.49-80.