Case Study: U.S Humanitarian Intervention
The “just war” theory provide a criteria for making a decision on whether war or occupation in another country is just. The theory is almost solely a philosophy emanating from Western and, later, Christian dogmatic schools of thought. Consequently, the theory bears credibility purely in the contemporary westernized logic. Using the theory, military feasibility and moral justification for intervening in Somalia can be examined.
Military intervention in Somalia was justified under the “just-war” theory. According to this theory one of the criteria to be considered before waging war against a sovereign state is that it is done for the right intention. Consequently, U.S military action was justifiable because it was a humanitarian intervention that involved the use of force against militant organizations with the aim of averting prevalent and grave breaches of fundamental human rights (Harned, 2016).
With the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime and Mohammed Aideed and Ali Mahdi instigating a rancorous war in the country, military intervention was certainly called for. This is because these circumstances provided the right cause which is one of the other criteria that is considered before waging war. Aideed and Mahdi threatened the safety of the citizens by reigning anarchy as war raged between their armed militias. This chaotic state of the country certainly called for military action (Labonte, 2012).
