On the one hand, states are able to hold up non-intervention in cases where it is ‘undesirable’ or ‘unnecessary’ to act. On the other, states can harness the rhetoric and manipulate moral pleas for ‘humanitarian intervention’ in order to justify interventions wherever it is deemed to be convenient and beneficial to conventional economic interest. T.G. Weiss has led a growing field of scholars in fleshing out these critiques, but many more cases remain unexplored.

Gordon Brown, in a speech to the Congress of the United States, made a emotive reflection on the moral responsibility the world had to Rwanda. It seems that the world is willing to once again state 'Never Again' , but is this possible if the international system of states remains organised in the way it is at present?

It is the aim and hope that this website has offered a critical perspective from the case of Rwanda in the early 1990s as an example of where a series of manipulative diplomatic occurances permitted the deaths and suffering of millions. Here these occurances were shown to have been permitted to exist by loopholes originating from basing the world's premier humanitarian-interventionist body, the UN, on a principle that retains all policy formulating power in grip of the most powerful member states.

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player