Course: POLS 320 – Global Security and Public Policy
Module 4 Discussion: The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention
Due Date: Initial Post by Thursday 11:59 PM; Replies by Sunday 11:59 PM (Local Time)
Points: 50
Get a custom-written paper by an expert in this subject. Plagiarism-free, on time, any citation style.
- ✓ PhD & Masters qualified writers
- ✓ Turnitin-safe — 0% similarity
- ✓ Free revisions + money-back guarantee
From $11/page · All academic levels
Word Count: Initial Post (350–400 words); Replies (150 words each)
Overview
International relations theory often struggles to reconcile two competing concepts: state sovereignty and universal human rights. Sovereignty suggests that what happens within a country’s borders is the exclusive business of that state. Human rights advocates argue that the international community has a moral obligation to intervene when a government fails to protect its people. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine attempts to bridge this gap, but its application remains inconsistent. We see different responses to crises in places like Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Initial Post Instructions
Review the readings for Module 4, specifically the sections on the R2P framework. Compose a response that addresses the following prompt:
Our expert writers specialise in this subject and deliver original, well-researched papers.
Nursing & Healthcare · PhD Edinburgh
Business & Law · MBA London
Is the principle of state sovereignty an outdated obstacle to human security, or does it remain a necessary barrier against imperialism?
Support your argument by analyzing one specific historical or contemporary example of humanitarian intervention (or non-intervention). Explain whether the international response in your chosen case was justified and effective. You must cite the textbook and at least one scholarly article from the module resources to support your position.
Join 12,400+ students who trust us with their academic success. Every order includes: free revisions within 30 days, plagiarism report, on-time delivery guarantee, and full confidentiality.
Participation Requirements
Academic dialogue relies on constructive critique and the exchange of diverse perspectives. You are required to post two replies to your peers. Your replies should do more than agree or disagree. Ask a probing question about their example or offer a counterpoint based on a different theoretical perspective (e.g., Realism vs. Liberalism).
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Exemplary (45-50 points) | Proficient (35-44 points) | Needs Improvement (0-34 points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Analysis | Argument is clear, original, and deeply grounded in course concepts. The case study is applied effectively to the theoretical debate. | Argument is clear but may lack depth. The link between the case study and the theory is present but could be stronger. | Argument is vague or missing. The post relies on opinion rather than analysis of the course material. |
| Engagement & Interaction | Replies are substantive and extend the conversation. They offer new evidence or alternative viewpoints. | Replies meet the length requirement but may be repetitive or lack critical depth. | Replies are missing, too short, or merely complimentary (e.g., “Good job”). |
| Mechanics & Support | Writing is professional and error-free. Sources are integrated smoothly and cited correctly in Harvard style. | Writing is clear but contains minor errors. Citations are included but may have formatting issues. | Writing is difficult to understand. Sources are missing or not cited. |
State sovereignty often functions as a shield for regimes to commit atrocities without fear of external consequence. The failure to intervene in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide illustrates the catastrophic cost of prioritizing non-intervention over human life. Sovereignty should be viewed as a responsibility rather than a right; when a state attacks its own citizens, it forfeits its sovereign immunity. Future policies must prioritize the R2P framework to prevent similar failures.
Learning Resources
- Bellamy, A.J. and Dunne, T. (2020) The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gifkins, J. (2021) ‘Beyond the veto: The politics of UN Security Council working methods’, International Affairs, 97(4), pp. 1063–1080. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab092
- Ralph, J. (2018) ‘What should be done? Pragmatic liberal interventionism and the crisis in Syria’, International Politics, 55(1), pp. 102–118.
- Welsh, J.M. (2019) ‘The Responsibility to Protect after Libya and Syria’, Daedalus, 148(1), pp. 75–87.
