Humanitarian intervention

This article will try to clarify the legal status of humanitarian intervention under international law. Most of the ideas obtained were from the conference I attended from 19-22 march at the college of European studies, Natolin(Warsaw). Basically, the conference was sort of an introduction to the various aspects of international humanitarian law under the umbrella of International Law.
I would try to give an overview of the legal status of humanitarian intervention under International Law today.
Inspite of the long history of legal discourse on the matter, there is no consistence consensus as regards the legality of humanitarian intervention under international law. The opponents of formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention often refer to the risk of abuse of the action and, in view of the many so-called humanitarian interventions which have been carried out for reasons of self-interest, this argument can be easily understood. Yet, others argue that situations of grave and systematic human rights violations do justify an intervention for humanitarian reasons and that such situations concerns the international community as a whole. Indeed, during the second half of the 20th century the development within human rights law shows a clear tendency towards a greater international responsibility.
Still, after having studied relevant legislation, case law and legal doctrine, it is my view that legality of humanitarian intervention is restricted to situations where there is prior authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Individual states or a community of states cannot without such prior authorization justify a humanitarian intervention on legal grounds under international law today. The following pages will portray why.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is the wording of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter which is at the center of the debate with respect to the legality of humanitarian interventions.1 Does this provision allow for an intervention by the use of force for humanitarian reasons? Opinions differ immensely on this vexed question.
Still, in spite of the long history of legal discourse concerning humanitarian intervention, there is a lack of consistent consensus (opinio juris communis) under international law. Throughout history and still today there has been a reluctance in formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention out of fear of abuse of the same. On the other hand, there are situations were an intervention for humanitarian reasons may be well founded. Many argue that the United Nations Security Council should have responded earlier to the situation in Rwanda, where the lack of action resulted in genocide. Grave and systematic human rights violations are a concern not solely to the sovereign state in which they are conducted but to the international community as a whole.
In not trying to be called a pessimist though, International humanitarian law has vividly streamlined the policies and structures needed in times of war and after war especially when dealing with combatants, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, refugees and humanitarian aid. Most of the organizations(International committee of red cross) operating under the umbrella of International humanitarian law has however been useful in assisting the victims of war(both civilians and combatants). Much still has to be done in terms of formulating non discriminating policies.

Life...Life.....Life

What do you first do when you learn to swim? You make mistakes, do you not? And what happens? You make other mistakes, and when you have made all the mistakes you possibly can without drowning - and some of them many times over - what do you find? That you can swim? Well - life is just the same as learning to swim! Do not be afraid of making mistakes, for there is no other way of learning how to live!

MALE FRIENDS

Beware the company she keeps for they will betray you. Few people have integrity in this world and even fewer keep it when the gain is so great. It is all we have and it sells for nothing. In desperation people will lie, steal and cheat to get what they desire. This applies greatly to relationships and your girlfriends “male friends.”

There is a big problem that is running rampant in today's relationships and it's called male friends. A lot of guy's would steal your girlfriend right out from under you without a second thought. Either through lack of integrity or desperation for love and affection would they take what is not theirs leaving you confused as to why this happened.

Some women are to blame for this. They love external validation so much so that is has become an addiction to them. They gain their self esteem from the compliments and attention from others and it is a tough habit to break. They get into relationships and receive withdrawal symptoms from not having drunk guys suck up to them every weekend. Without this attention they feel ugly, useless and miserable.

They like the security that comes from a relationship because almost everyone fears dying alone but still feel the shakes as the self esteem derived from external validation leaves their system. Single and fearing dying alone or in a relationship and watching their false self esteem dwindles away?

There lies a compromise that most take: be in a relationship but keep the male companions around for validation. All the while you can pretend like it doesn't bother you when she constantly texts her “friend” who is a little too touchy for your tastes. Or like most guy's who don't like it you can keep your mouth shut and repress your irritation.

You don't like it but feel helpless in the situation. You know something is off but feel like there is nothing you can do about it. You have made far too many rationalizations in your head for this sort of behavior. You don't want to appear needy or macho so you let it go only to find the situation getting worse as the days go bye.

Few find the strength and courage to say something to the girl which only ends up in an argument. Never argue with a women, she's better at it. The argument doesn't go as you plan and you only end up feeling guilty for something that doesn't sit right with you. The uncertainty of whether or not her having touchy feely male friends is what kills you and makes you unable to stand your ground.

She tells you hes just a friend and you believe it but something still doesn't sit right in your stomach. You feel as though it's unfair that she has friends that are a little close for comfort while you would never allow any female friends to get that way. You feel loyal to the relationship and wouldn't allow anything to threaten it but would she?

That's an important question to ask any time you feel like there is a male friend of hers that you don't quite trust. Does she care about the relationship to let go of anyone who threatens it? Or does she enjoy the high she gets from external validation more? If the answer is yes that she does want to protect the relationship then the male friend needs to go.