Prevention+of+Genocide+vs.+State+Sovereignty

=The world has been too conservative. Now, is the time to ACT. =



// Why is UN so conservative? //
// Every // time there was a major genocide, UN ignored the matter and did not act. It was very conservative on every act they made. Even when they sent troops to Rwanda to prevent genocide, they called their troops back in because eleven UN soldiers were killed (Confronting Genocide: Never Again? page 24). 11 is no comparison to 1,000,000 Rwandans killed. UN also refused to to use the term "genocide" to the event occurring in Darfur, even though it is clearly aware of the number of casualties. It might seem irrelevant that calling an event "genocide" would make any difference. However, calling it a genocide makes the public aware of the fact that there is a genocide going on. It can also help that country carrying out genocide infamous, encouraging other countries to justify their intervention in state sovereignty. Then, why is UN so conservative? UN is not an international government, and can not make laws are force peace among nations due to state soveriengty (Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World). The members of UN has to vote for a resolution for a certain conflict being discussed, and the resolution has to get a majority of the votes for it to pass. Since UN can't force peace and has a democratic voting system, delegates from different countries has the right to decide whether they are going to act or not. There might be cases that the majority disagreed with the resolution, or countries might not want to get involved in the conflict, or they might want to keep good relationships with the country at fault. All of the above can be the reason why the UN is so conservative.


== media type="youtube" key="dchqJ7bhCBA" height="344" width="425"==

//How did state sovereignty play a role in genocides?//
// Many // of us already know that state sovereignty is the right of a country to trial their own people and rule in their own system of government without intervention from other countries. State sovereignty has affected many countries; both the watchers and the victims. The countries that are trying not to get involved with conflicts like genocides are making up excuses. They claim they have to keep state sovereignty and they do not have the rights to intervene with a country's system of governing. They also back themselves up by saying big powers can abuse the conflict by intervene a country when that country did not do anything wrong. State sovereignty is a trick thing since other countries can't decide if the country being evaluated did something wrong or not.

Source: Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World

// Intervention.... How far? //
If the UN concludes intervention is needed, when, under whose authority, and how should it occur? Also, should the military be involved in the intervention? In the book, //The Responsibility to Protect,// there are the answers to those two questions. The military can intervene in the following situations
 * If all possible peaceful ways of settling the conflict was tried
 * If the country guilty of genocide has manipulated intervention to gain political power
 * If human rights were threatened by the government
 * If the intervention had full authority and right to intervene

Source: The Responsibility to Protect (page 11)

It is still not clear how interventions should take place and where the limits are. Politically, morally, economically- there will be many conflicts in these areas, but to resolve this, the UN should be more active and the International Court of Justice should have divided parts so that international laws can be made and unclear laws clearer. The laws should be made for the countries to abide it and keep peace among the nations and in individual nations. There should be precise limitations to until when interventions should take place and clearer situations when intervention can happen.

=// Motion: The world should intervene with state sovereignty to relieve the people suffering from genocide. //= //** Proposition **// //** Opposition **//
 * Morally, life is more important than money
 * Many countries can team up to help the people suffering from genocide, so that the country that got intervened won't be able to revenge
 * Genocide should not be justified, thus countries have to stop it from spreading
 * Targeted ethnicity or religion will be wiped out
 * If government is reluctant to intervene, NGOs can directly help the suffering people
 * History of Africans having been exploited by the Europeans (prejudiced about European countries' intervention)
 * Big powers can abuse intervention to exploit other countries
 * International relationships will get hurt
 * Face reality: Money is more important than life to countries that are not getting affected
 * The money and military used to help people suffering from genocides can be used somewhere else more beneficial
 * No direct benefits come to the countries who helped