LNAT Practice Test Essay – Should military intervention ever be justified on humanitarian grounds? Discuss the implications.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Should military intervention ever be justified on humanitarian grounds? Discuss the implications.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

The question of whether military intervention can ever be justified on humanitarian grounds has been a subject of significant debate among scholars, policymakers, and the international community. Proponents of such intervention argue that it is necessary to protect vulnerable populations from atrocities and human rights abuses, while opponents contend that military force often exacerbates conflicts and undermines the principles of national sovereignty and non-intervention. This essay will explore the arguments for and against humanitarian military intervention and discuss the implications of such actions for international relations and global security.

Arguments in Favor of Humanitarian Military Intervention

Supporters of humanitarian military intervention argue that it is a moral imperative for the international community to take action in situations where governments are unable or unwilling to protect their populations from gross human rights abuses, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. In this view, the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2005, provides a legal and moral framework for justifying intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Proponents also contend that, in some cases, military intervention can be an effective means of preventing or halting mass atrocities and creating the conditions for peace and stability. Examples often cited in support of this argument include the NATO-led intervention in Kosovo in 1999, which is credited with preventing a potential genocide of the Kosovar Albanian population, and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, which arguably prevented a massacre of civilians by the Gaddafi regime.

Furthermore, advocates of humanitarian intervention argue that the principle of national sovereignty should not be used as a shield for governments that commit atrocities against their own people. In this view, the international community has a moral duty to intervene in situations where the rights and well-being of vulnerable populations are at stake, regardless of the potential violation of national sovereignty.

Arguments Against Humanitarian Military Intervention

Conversely, opponents of humanitarian military intervention argue that it often exacerbates conflicts and results in unintended consequences, such as increased civilian casualties, political instability, and long-term resentment towards the intervening powers. Critics point to examples like the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was initially justified in part on humanitarian grounds but ultimately resulted in a protracted and destabilizing conflict with significant human costs.

Additionally, critics contend that military intervention on humanitarian grounds can be subject to political manipulation and selective application, as powerful states may use such intervention as a pretext for pursuing their own strategic interests. This can lead to inconsistencies in the international community’s response to humanitarian crises and undermine the credibility of the R2P principle.

Finally, opponents argue that humanitarian military intervention can erode the principles of national sovereignty and non-intervention, which are central to the international system and the United Nations Charter. By bypassing these principles, humanitarian intervention may contribute to a more unstable and unpredictable global order, in which military force becomes an increasingly accepted means of addressing complex political and humanitarian problems.

Implications

The debate surrounding humanitarian military intervention raises important questions about the role of force in international relations, the responsibility of the international community to protect vulnerable populations, and the potential consequences of intervention for global security and stability. While there are compelling moral arguments in favor of intervening to prevent mass atrocities, the practical and political implications of such intervention must also be carefully considered.

Ultimately, the decision to intervene on humanitarian grounds should be guided by a rigorous assessment of the potential benefits and risks, as well as a commitment to pursuing diplomatic and non-military solutions wherever possible. It is essential for the international community to develop a consistent and transparent framework for evaluating and responding to humanitarian crises, in order to ensure that military intervention is only used as a last resort and with the genuine aim of protecting vulnerable populations from harm.

Conclusion