Armed InterventionsEssay title: Armed InterventionsThere are three types of Armed Interventions; Unilaterally in self-defense, multilateral in order to restore peace and multilateral as a regional collective defense action (Viotti and Kauppi, 2007)
The only conflicts that I could foresee would be between unilateral self-defense and through a multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council. The conflict arises when a country has been attacked. They want to go ahead and retaliate on the offender, but the U N Security Council may see it differently. They may want to negotiate a peaceful solution before a situation can escalate into a war conflict. Secondly, if both countries are part of the UN the situation would definitely be a lot more complex. In the case of humanitarian intervention, the conflict is not a great because of its legitimacy. According to Article III of The Legitimacy Of Armed Humanitarian Intervention, The Jus ad Bellum, is the right to use force in international relations. If I were President of the United States, my criteria would be very simple; utilize the criteria already in place, because it covers all the bases. When to intervene, when to protect, and when to retaliate would be the primary questions
The Human Rights Council does not have to be the “international body” of countries like the UN that oversees U.S. military policy.
The Human Rights Council has been working in secret with various members, especially the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the U.S., for more than 4 years with the result that there is no official record of the Human Rights Council process. In 2008 one of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights was referred to the General Assembly with little to nothing from the Human Rights Council. In 2009 it was confirmed by the General Assembly, without a vote of resolution.
The United States has committed itself to the UN Human Rights Committee for 10 years. It did not stop there because it wants to. The United States wants the UN to respect the international law of the ground, Human Rights Committee policy, as well as a national interest of peace and human rights across the world. The U.S. government’s goal with regards to human rights is to use the Convention as a tool to build trust without being accused of any crime, or being forced to take action for fear of being accused of violating any of these provisions. This is the “basic principle” of the U.S. mission that is being used to build trust despite lack of evidence or evidence of wrongdoing. No U.S. citizen has ever been charged with any crime without the “good faith” of the U.S. government.
In 2011, two Members of the Senate subcommittee on Crime, Security, and Political Affairs of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Government of the United States, Hina Shamsi and M.P. Shevchenko referred to the Human Rights Council in a report issued on January 19, 2011 and asked the Committee on the Environment, Parks, and Rural Affairs to review the status of the General Assembly and establish if any Member has ever been charged with having violated any of U.S. U.N., UN, and international human rights conventions. The Chair of the U.S. subcommittee on Crime, Security, and Political Affairs and the Deputy United Nations Representative on Violence Against Women referred to their subcommittee and asked the Committee on Human Rights to consider the following questions: 1) would the Human Rights Council be charged with the violation of U.N. laws? 2) how would U.N. laws be interpreted in the future considering the current administration’s actions in the current Human Rights Council? 3) is the Human Rights Council in a position to exercise jurisdiction over the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense when such actions are undertaken in the security of U.S. and other nations? 4) What would the Human Rights Council do if the Secretary of State violates U.N. human rights law when the Secretary (or the Secretary), is in the interests of either the interests of the State or of the United States?
Although the U.S. Government does not explicitly state at which part in the Human Rights Council will be charged with violation of U.N. law, it is generally assumed that it will consider the following: 1) whether and how U.S. and other nations violate the International Covenant Principle (ICPR) on the protection of human rights, 2) the right to political participation within a State or on an International forum, and 3) whether an international forum involves an obligation to the exclusion of others. Article III states the prohibition of “any kind of discrimination against a person or property other than as determined by the General Assembly or the provisions of the ICHR (II (1993a)) and as may be specified by the Secretary of State in the relevant Statutes”.
The Human Rights Council does not have to be the “international body” of countries like the United States that oversees U.S. military policy.
According to article I, a UN Security Council member would “associate himself with, or supervise any such institution for the purpose of providing that it does not