First read the instructions for students. Then assess the level of this text by ticking the descriptor boxes below.
UN intervention is justified
According to the Declaration of the human rights, has every person the right on these universal rights. This means that states should protect people from abuses of the human rights. However, in many states the government does not protect these rights; moreover, the government violates the them. Even though almost every state has signed the Universal Declaration. The discussion when there is a right to intervene is difficult; however, the United Nations (UN) should have the right to intervene in states which seriously abuses human rights, not only because the purpose of the UN is to protect the international security, but also because of the importance of the human rights.
One of the main reasons why the UN should have the right to intervene in a state which seriously violates the human rights, is because the purpose of the UN is to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security and human rights. The violation of human rights in a state might lead to a threat to the international security and destabilize the neighbouring states because of the overwhelming influx of refugees. This may pose a threat to the international peace; therefore, the UN should have right to intervene in certain circumstances.
Another reason why the UN should have the right to intervene, is because of the importance of the human rights. Some people argue that intervention is never allowed because of the principle of sovereignty. Although, this principle very important in international law, in certain circumstances the human rights prevail. When a state consequent violates human rights in spite of all the warnings, that state cannot claim sovereignty anymore. Furthermore, it is more important to save the people from suffering than respect this principle. Otherwise, all the states that seriously abuses human rights, could claim sovereignty and continue the violations. The UN is the organization that can intervene and is justified to do so.
However, opponents argue that it is too difficult to determine when the UN is justified to intervene. States all over the world violate human rights, nevertheless, the UN does not intervene in all those states. For instance, a few weeks ago, in the news was stated that the Netherlands had violated some human rights. Nonetheless, this will not lead to an intervention of the UN because this is not a threat to the international security. This is a quite obvious case; however, this will not always be like that. Besides, it will be difficult to agree on this point within the UN. However, there is still a discussion about the Rwanda failure in 1994. Most people say that the UN should have had intervened in Rwanda since there was a serious violation of the human rights. To avoid repetition of such a situation, the UN should have the right to intervene under certain conditions in certain circumstances.
To conclude, it is important that the UN has the right to intervene in a state which consequent violates human rights in spite of all the warnings of the UN. In some circumstances the respect of the human rights prevails the principle of sovereignty. Even though, it will be difficult to come to an agreement within the UN.
(Source: EMBED project, © University of Groningen)