Amazon.com Widgets

Should the international community interfere in domestic affairs at times of humanitarian crises?

  • Absolutely, international community should interfere!

    The Earth is the collection of human beings national boundaries are more of the product of political control but we as humans are always one also these boundaries will keep changing over time but humanity will remain same. So if it is being observed at some part of the world their is indeed a humanitarian crisis then there should be formed an international body to defend the basic rights of a human.

  • The international community can provide a counterbalance to oppression.

    The international community can (and in many cases should) act in ways that protect human rights. If a government is oppressing or endangering its own people, the collective will of people everywhere should be able to act in the defense of the oppressed. Other forms of pressure (like economic sanctions) can be useful in altering a government's policies, too.

    Posted by: LivingJimmy
  • It is the responsibility of countries that have more resources and wealth to share those benefits, when their fellow man is endangered.

    This debate comes down to not just a moral responsibility, but an evolutionary one. Have humans evolved to a place of heightened integrity, to where we can forget "survival of the fittest", and allow ourselves, as citizens of countries of wealth and health, to help our fellow humans when crisis strikes? I think so. Not only is it right, it is just. And, it is exactly what our cultural, moral, and religious beliefs have been based on for centuries now.

    Posted by: EarlyIgnacio74
  • I agree that the international community should help, whenever possible, because not every country has the means and technological advances that can quickly help the situation get better.

    The international community should help, in times of a humanitarian crisis. One such example is during the recent devastating earthquake in Haiti. Haiti did not have the means to shelter and feed its population and countries, like the United States and England, helped to provide temporary shelter and economic aid to ease the transition back to a somewhat normal life for the people of Haiti.

    Posted by: elliotspants
  • Turning a blind eye to disasters deepens the problem.

    While common humanity dictates an interference, it should not be a decision a group of nations or a nation takes lightly. Every disaster and crisis is different and unique, and intervention and the scope of it may not always be the answer. However, if a person looks back at history, a lot of humanitarian crises were made worse by ignoring them. Rwanda is a prime example.

    Posted by: MarriedRudy
  • I support international involvement in certain domestic affairs when there are humanitarian crises, because it can save innocent lives.

    Many domestic affairs become civil wars, and large groups of people are killed due to their race, religion, and other factors. These wars devastate populations and the nation, but, they can be lessened with international involvement. When a country knows that the whole world is watching and will intervene, then they are less likely to slaughter a whole group of people.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • The international community has a responsibility to saving human life and, if there is a humanitarian crisis that threatens human life, then the international community should take action.

    NATO's recent attacks on the Libyan government were taken in response to a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by their leader and military. The reason for this intervention was to save the lives of innocent civilians who were being harmed by their government.

    Posted by: PointlessHarvey
  • Yes, the International Community should intervene in domestic affairs at times of humanitarian crisis, because it is its duty to prevent genocide and aid with other disasters.

    While the international community should not intervene at all times, it should intervene during humanitarian crisis, because such actions are often necessary to prevent genocide and/or other horrible events. For proof of this, we only need to look at the genocide that occurred in Rwanda during the 1990s, where the international community took a long time to respond, and the result was hundreds of thousands of people massacred. This is not something any community can or should tolerate.

    Posted by: Random72003
  • Any time lives are at stake they should interfere.

    A good example of when the international community should interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries is happening now in Libya. The leader of that country has ordered parts of his military to fire on innocent civilians because they are protesting for freedoms against their government. I think it is time for the United Nations to send troops to that country to stop the unnecessary bloodshed and to protect the people of Libya.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • Yes, because in times of need, the world must help, even if it is considered interference.

    A humanitarian crisis would involve significant loss of life and property. When such crises occur, the domestic government will find it very hard to deal with a huge loss. A human life should not be lost because of the government's inability to deal with a crisis. Even countries that are highly developed are not able to cope with a crisis, as seen in the ongoing flood in Australia. However, an interference is necessary only when there is a significant loss. That would mean a very large scale disaster, like The Haiti earthquake in early 2010. A country's sovereignty must be respected, but not at the cost of a thousand innocent lives.

    Posted by: N4rrGet
  • Because it's their issue - nobody's business

    Because it's their issue - nobody's business. We need to stop interference in other countries social issues. Nobody can impose on someone to do the way he likes. Every country has own mentality and issues and they are adult societies to solve them on their own. Stop nanny states and international interfering when it is not your problem.

  • No they should not

    We should not interfere with any countries because before you interfere, one side looks up to you (the ones being killed) and the other fears your unseen power. Yes, every life is precious, so are lives of soldiers of countries not involved in barbarism. Why should non-native lives be sacrificed to protect a foreign nation's population, a population who, under different circumstances, would inflict exactly the kind of behaviour it is suffering from upon its enemies? I'm all for sanctions and/or embargoes and other passive resistance means of stopping such crises, but the line must be drawn at sacrificing human lives in a misguided attempt to `help' people who neither appreciate that help, nor will hesitate in the slightest to knife your back once their lives are safe. Just like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

  • Mind Your own business.

    Just mind your own business America. All America wants is the resources in the country it is invading, not to help the people. Take Afghanistan. The only reason why America invaded them is because of the oil, gas and money, not to help the people.
    Just mind your own business America.

  • By interefering, you make enemies both of those you protect and who you fight against.

    Before you interfere, one side looks up to you (the ones being killed) and the other fears your unseen power. Yes, every life is precious, so are lives of soldiers of countries not involved in barbarism. Why should non-native lives be sacrificed to protect a foreign nation's population, a population who, under different circumstances, would inflict exactly the kind of behaviour it is suffering from upon its enemies? I'm all for sanctions and/or embargoes and other passive resistance means of stopping such crises, but the line must be drawn at sacrificing human lives in a misguided attempt to `help' people who neither appreciate that help, nor will hesitate in the slightest to knife your back once their lives are safe. Just like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

  • Even in times of crisis, sovereign rights should be respected.

    Allowing other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries for any reason will provide aggressive nations with a pretense to invade their neighbors. History abounds with examples of one nation invading another on "humanitarian" pretexts from the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany to the invasion of Grenada by the US in the 80's.

    Posted by: 5h4Dev

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-05-10T02:30:46.900
This feels a bit biased ._.