| dc.description.abstract | The study sought to examine the application of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention using the USA as a case study. The aim is to assess whether the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is being applied correctly to serve the intended purposes or misused to pursue other purposes. The dilemma is about whether the doctrine is being applied for, humanitarian purposes to save humanity from grave violations of human rights or, political purposes to promote certain selfish state interests and values.
There has been a great deal of concern about human rights violations and promotion of democracy lately. In principle, one can only welcome this renewed concern with the fate of faraway victims. But this common use of the human rights label, it seems, masks significant differences about what could be use or abuse of the doctrine by intervening states. The need to investigate and establish the truth about the application of the doctrine was necessary. To do this the paper I carried out a study utilizing largely secondary sources and some primary sources based on unstructured interviews. This data was collected colleted and analyzed to produce findings to the study.
The findings show that out of the many interventions conducted by US in the last 30 years, only one qualified as a genuine humanitarian intervention. This particular intervention was undertaken in Somalia and served humanitarian purposes. Other interventions that were carried out by US served US selfish political interests. These interventions were disguised as humanitarian intervention to escape accountability for violation of international law.
This disguise amounted to abuse of a well meaning international doctrine. The motivation of US interventions was driven by the desire to spread liberalism defined in the image of American values. Besides promoting American global interests, the US also hoped that the values of liberalism would promote international peace and shape a US favorable world order. | en_US |
