Political Science

In his book, Wheeler undertakes an assessment of the situational changes that the humanitarian intervention environment and the global contribution it achieves. He underscores the basis for legitimizing humanitarian intervention and further responds to skeptics who believe that humanitarian intervention is basically a tool for power politics that powerful nations use to achieve their geopolitical pursuits. He uses the case studies of Indias invasion of East Pakistan (1971), Tanzanias use of force in Uganda (1979) and the Vietnams overthrow of Pol pot regime of Cambodia in 1979. He cites the reluctance of the UN Security Council to pursue legitimacy aspect of humanitarian intervention up until the end of the second world and subsequently the Iraq, Somalia and Bosnian interventions (Wheeler, 2002). Through his article the concerns of the constructivist internationals relation scholars is adequately addressed by expounding on the understanding of the international norms and their development. He mainly advances the concept of international society rather than the realists belief that concentration of power is the international relations defining force or the utopian demands for revolution of the state based international systems (Wheeler, 2002). He rather takes the approach that state interaction patterns be embodied in rules that express common interests and values formulated through historical and contemporary processes study. 

His emphasis on a society build on a variety of states that are conscious of common interest and values binds them to rules that help them in relating to each other is enormous. He stresses the need of these state societies to intervene in cases where both state and non-state actors disregard international laws and thus put human survival in danger. Wheeler takes the English schools solidarism approach in dealing with the issue. In this approach, the international societys legitimacy in its commitment to justice is strengthened. It asserts that the society cannot let order and justice to remain locked in perennial tension but instead should look at possibilities of overcoming the conflict that resulted to the disorder (Wheeler, 2002). While I am obliged to agree that international society must be willing to formulate international laws and policies that allow intervention in cases of humanitarian situations that result from state actors, I disagree that intervention should be applied in general to non state actors. Instead international law should be legally binding to states to act on such non state causes of humanitarian crisis and only in such cases where the state fails to do so, should intervention of the international society be employed. However, state actors must not be allowed to move even an inch deep with their transgressions as the impacts of such has been witnessed historically.

The Rwandan genocide is a clear reflection of the impact of late intervention. While realist inclined international scholars have argued that international laws are not proper laws as they lack the authority that may not bind states, Wheeler argues otherwise and I agree (Wheeler, 2002). In his perspective Wheeler, views the law as the interlocking amidst power and authority. The cases cited in the book represent the success of intervention to save humanitarian crisis even where its in conflict with international. The book cites collapsed states where human rights violation had become an order of the day experience a great turn around upon intervention. The intervening states had to exercise both military and political power in its intervention (Wheeler, 2002). His assertion that instead of blanket condemnation of intervention acts, what is important is creation of a distinction between dominationforce based power and legitimate power based on moral principles, is rather in line with upholding of humanity (Wheeler, 2002).

Wheelers rejection of the international principles of sovereignty and non-intervention is indeed justified. It raises the question of whether moral principles should be ignored in a bid to steer by the international rules that allow human rights to be violated in the name of sovereignty and non-intervention policies.

The world international scholars must ask themselves questions from history could lives have been saved if Tanzania had not waited too long to intervene Could Rwandan crisis have turned to genocide if not for the long term blind eye the world gave it, in the name of international laws, what of Cambodia, Vietnam and other states Wheeler adequately addresses this situations and he says that,
I acknowledge that situations can arise where an alternative moral practice develops that secures approval but that breaks the existing law (Wheeler, 2002).

This perspective asserts that moral values far surpass international laws as they are the basis for formulation of the laws. There exist need therefore that international laws legalize intervention in cases of humanitarian emergency arise. A similar argument was previously put forth by Thomas Franck and Nigel Rodney that,
Unilateral humanitarian intervention belongs in the realm not of law but of moral choice (Wheeler, 2002).

A good example is the case of Kosovo. While the intervention that took place then, was illegal but then it held moral standing within the society. Wheelers acknowledgement that moral justification of an intervention that contravenes international law undermines the whole structure of international obligations broadens the perspective on the need for international law scholars to fine tune the international laws to cover existing universal moral obligations. Should one be allowed to kill another on the pretext of non-intervention law The answer is obviously no. the laws should be fine tuned to allow prevention of such acts within the society. However, wheelers blanket general provision for intervention has limitations. In cases where non-state actors engage in humanitarian abuses, international laws, rather than be quick to allow external intervention should provide time limit for the affected state to respond before allowing intervention. This would bar greedy and power hungry states from taking slight misdoing to their political and power quest advantage.

Wheeler recommends that state actions in reactions to humanitarian conditions should be constrained if they lack justification and plausible legitimate reasoning (Wheeler, 2002). He addresses the fear that state proclaimed humanitarian justifications may be insincere and bear selfish, motives but then he further asserts that the humanitarian justifications and results should provide the legal and moral justification for the actions (Wheeler, 2002). While it has been argued that both the Clinton and the Bush administration had applied humanitarian grounds to justify Kosovo intervention yet they bore ulterior motives, subsequently they had to address the humanitarian concerns that existed in the situation. The international laws should be structured to ensure that once a state invokes humanitarian grounds as its reason for intervention, it must be bound to abide by the humanitarian grounds it invoked.

In conclusion, its important to cite that Wheeler offers four requirements for humanitarian intervention, which are that there must exist a supreme humanitarian emergency, application of force and military might should always be the last resort, the force used be proportional to the situation and there must be a high probability that a positive humanitarian outcome. While I am in agreement with these four requirements, they need to incorporate some principles which allow intervention only in instances where the state in question is guilty of the humanitarian crisis or has displayed inability to avert the crisis. Additionally, a maximum time limit before intervention should be set taking regard of the intensity of the humanitarian crisis in question. Wheelers writing can therefore be conclusively regarded as a master piece that addresses key questions to future humanitarian interventions with regard to historical injustices to humanity. With a little fine tuning, the document is probably a complete guide to formulation of international laws on intervention on cases of humanitarian situations. Its no longer a question of how far a society can support the cause for minimum standard of humanity but how the society can achieve the highest respect for humanity from both state and non-state actors.