2021Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences StudiesOpen access

Conflicting Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention: In Light of the Darfur Crisis

Samuel Aron Issak

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This paper discusses the US and China’s response to the Darfur crisis in order to examine the underlying conflicting perspectives on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. The findings show that the US and China characterized the Darfur crisis differently. For the US the level of violence in Darfur was genocide; thus, robust humanitarian intervention was required to stop it. On the other hand, China described the situation as a crisis, but not genocide. Therefore, addressing it requires a peace process rather than humanitarian intervention. This is a clear indication of the conflicting perspectives that exist around the principle of humanitarian intervention. The reason is that national interest rather than humanitarian consideration seems to dictate their response to the Darfur crisis.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper discusses the US and China’s response to the Darfur crisis in order to examine the underlying conflicting perspectives on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. The findings show that the US and China characterized the Darfur crisis differently. For the US the level of violence in Darfur was genocide; thus, robust humanitarian intervention was required to stop it. On the other hand, China described the situation as a crisis, but not genocide. Therefore, addressing it requires a peace process rather than humanitarian intervention. This is a clear indication of the conflicting perspectives that exist around the principle of humanitarian intervention. The reason is that national interest rather than humanitarian consideration seems to dictate their response to the Darfur crisis.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper discusses the US and China’s response to the Darfur crisis in order to examine the underlying conflicting perspectives on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. The findings show that the US and China characterized the Darfur crisis differently. For the US the level of violence in Darfur was genocide; thus, robust humanitarian intervention was required to stop it. On the other hand, China described the situation as a crisis, but not genocide. Therefore, addressing it requires a peace process rather than humanitarian intervention. This is a clear indication of the conflicting perspectives that exist around the principle of humanitarian intervention. The reason is that national interest rather than humanitarian consideration seems to dictate their response to the Darfur crisis.

Key concepts: Humanitarian intervention, Legitimacy, Genocide, Humanitarian crisis, Intervention (counseling), Political science, China, Humanitarian aid

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Conflicting Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention: In Light of the Darfur Crisis — Research Paper | ScholarLens