Question

Terrorism and mass violence

P‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‌‍lease answer each question in 1/2 a page totaling to 1 page total.

Question 1: Ramsbotam et al. (2011), in the discussion on conflict resolution intervention principles, talks about responsibility to protect, specifically the use of “just intervention" (pg. 325).What is your opinion on whether ‘just intervention’ is ever a viable tactic towa‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‌‍rds conflict resolution? Why/why not?

Question 2: Ramsbothan et al. (2011) in chapter 1, addresses three intellectual challenges to conflict resolution (e.g., traditional, realist, traditional Marxist, western assumptions).In your opinion, given these challenges, do you think conflict resolution is a viable approach to settling human conflicts? Why/w‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‌‍hy not?

Expert Solution

Question 1;Although 'just intervention' is critical in enhancing peace, there could be controversy on its viability for resolving conflicts. This is because the concept of responsibility to protect entails each nation using its resources and power to protect its citizens against humanity crimes, genocides, and war crimes (Miall et al., 2011). However, in protecting their population, nations could use armed interventions, which could lead to the loss of human lives, and hence it could be challenging to assume that there are just wars. However, in some instances, war could be justified in that a country experiencing mass atrocities is not in a position to protect its population, necessitating international military intervention to react to such mass killings and atrocities to protect its people (Miall et al., 2011). Thus, "Just intervention" is a viable strategy for resolving conflict if peaceful strategies fail.

This question has been solved!

  • Verified by Admin
  • Written by a Human Expert
Unlock Solution Get Custom Solution
Blurred answer

Related Questions