Argument: Interventions can be small and successful.

It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq. [1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions.

Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005.

[1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8682505.stm

Candidate 1: "This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.

Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state [1] .

The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have.

It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/&gt; ."
Candidate 2: "Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/&gt; ."
Candidate 3: "Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.

Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it."
Candidate 4: "Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.

The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war. The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country.

This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table.

A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation1.

1 "Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011."
Candidate 5: "Force does more harm than good.

The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect.

Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare.

Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction.

For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths [1] .

If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them.

[1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html&gt; ."

Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/&gt; .
