To Initiate or Not To Initiate Armed Intervention? Analytical Essay

To Initiate or Not To Initiate Armed Intervention?
An analysis of the decision-making process when contemplating an armed intervention.
# 144711 | 832 words | 5 sources | APA | 2010 | US

$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now


This paper analyzes and addresses the conundrum many leaders face - what does one do when one is forced to consider an armed intervention? By way of history, the paper explains that, in 1945, the United Nations Charter collectively put together formulas based on the challenges they faced in the years before in regards to war, in hopes of moving towards a more peaceful society. The paper discusses many variables, such as the possible loss of life, that are involved in finding a solution to such a difficult situation. The paper opines that to initiate armed intervention or to seek out peaceful resolutions is not an easy choice to make, as war is inevitable and round-the-clock peace is not. Therefore, the paper concludes, leaders throughout time will always need to answer the loaded question of whether or not to move forward with armed intervention.

Criteria and Examples
Conflict and Misinterpretations
Answering the Loaded Question

From the Paper:

"In order to understand armed intervention, one must understand the criteria behind the logic that International Law set forth. The first criterion, which is unilaterally in self defense, refers to when an unsuspecting state is attacked by another state. In self defense, they have the power under this criterion to defend itself in armed intervention without breaking the code. The second criterion states armed intervention is okay multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council, typically through formal resolution. As previously mentioned, this is used to "maintain or restore international peace and security" (Kauppi & Viotti, p.183). During the first Gulf War, the United States was granted what is called a security resolution in order to after Iraq while in Kuwait. Another example of this is when NATO held a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia with the intent to halt what they thought was genocide (White, p.85). The last criterion mentioned is multilaterally by collective defense action. Simply stated, this is when two states work collectively and defensively together in order to resolve a common goal in one region."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Kauppi, M. & Viotti, P. (2009). International relations and world politics: security, economy, identity( 4th ed.) New Jersey: Pearson /Prentice Hall.
  • Mednicoff, D.M. (2006). Humane wars? International law, just war theory and contemporary armed humanitarian intervention. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2(3), 373-398. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1273317961).
  • Schachter, O. (1991). International law in theory and practice. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  • Tanca, A. (1993). Foreign armed intervention in internal conflict. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  • White, R.K. (1995). When does intervention make sense? Peace and Conflict. 1(1), 85. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from Questia Online Library.

Cite this Analytical Essay:

APA Format

To Initiate or Not To Initiate Armed Intervention? (2010, September 26) Retrieved May 25, 2022, from

MLA Format

"To Initiate or Not To Initiate Armed Intervention?" 26 September 2010. Web. 25 May. 2022. <>