Research Paper on:
Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the United Nations (Tharoor & Daws, 2001). However the phrase "humanitarian intervention" has not been embraced in more recent times (2001). Since Annan spoke those words, a debate has  ensued, one side committed to the rule of law in world affairs based on states rights, and the other on the rule of law based on the rights of  individuals (2001). It is a difficult dilemma. When should a country have a right to intervene in anothers business on humanitarian grounds? For example, while Americans see the United States  as perhaps the fairest country in the world, its allowance of the death penalty is seen as inhumane by some nations. The problem is that there is no consensus on  what is inhumane, what inalienable rights are exactly and whether or not a state should intervene in matters that another nation allows. Throughout the years, the United States has  taken a stand that is somewhat detached, but all the same concerned about human rights around the world. While Wilsons and Clintons ideas, for example, favored an actively engaged U.S.  foreign policy for democracy and humanity, the Clinton "doctrine" of humanitarian intervention has been the document that has been most subject to breach (Carey, 2001). The frequent interventions by the  United States in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo and even East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia to some extent have been guided by U.S. domestic politics, even though they  are considered peacekeeping missions (2001). The 1991, the Gulf War for example had been seen as a watershed in international relations as it was the first time that superpowers  cooperated in a major military action (2001). Bushs embrace of collective security in Iraq had been built upon a doctrine of cooperation with Gorbachev with the consent of