人道主义干预是利用武力来解决人民的特殊痛苦，例如种族灭绝或类似的，大规模侵犯人权的基本情况，人们的痛苦是由于他们自己政府的行为或未能采取行动造成的。这些干预措施也被称为“武装干预”或“武装人道主义干预”或“人道主义战争”。它们是保护，捍卫或拯救其他人免受其政府严重虐待的干预措施。武装干预未经违法国家同意进行。那些在军事上进行干预的是一个或多个国家或国际组织。由于这些干预措施自1980年代以来变得更加复杂和更加普遍，并且由于不干预的后果，例如在卢旺达种族灭绝中，因此需要考虑和理解人道主义干预所涉及的许多问题。 1994年，在不到三个月的时间里，将近一百万人被杀。人道主义干预措施引发了许多复杂的，相互关联的国际法，国际关系，政治哲学和道德问题。本文仅以战争理论为框架，考虑人道主义干预是否或何时是合理的道德问题。第一部分涉及人道主义干预和一般讨论的案例的一般特征，以及一些定义或术语问题。第二部分探讨了这样一个问题：哪些人道主义紧急情况升级到适当干预的水平？第三部分将战争理论作为证明人道主义干预理由的共同框架。第四部分考虑了可能支持或挑战武装干涉的其他一些相关问题：国际法，国家主权，选择性问题，政治现实主义，后殖民主义和女权主义批评以及和平主义。
英国考文垂大学HRM Assignment代写：武装人道主义干预
Humanitarian intervention is a use of military force to address extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their own government’s actions or failures to act. These interventions are also called “armed interventions,” or “armed humanitarian interventions,” or “humanitarian wars. They are interventions to protect, defend, or rescue other people from gross abuse attributable to their own government. The armed intervention is conducted without the consent of the offending nation. Those intervening militarily are one or more states, or international organizations. The need to consider and understand the many issues involved in humanitarian interventions have been borne home by the fact that these interventions has become more complex and more common since the 1980s, and because of the consequences of non-intervention, such as in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which nearly one million people were killed in less than three months. Humanitarian interventions raise many complex, inter-related issues of international law, international relations, political philosophy, and ethics. This article considers moral issues of whether or when humanitarian intervention is justified, using just war theory as a framework. Section One addresses general characterizations of humanitarian interventions and commonly discussed cases, as well as some definitional or terminological issues. Section Two examines the question: What humanitarian emergencies rise to a level at which intervention is appropriate? Section Three presents just war theory as a common framework for justifying humanitarian interventions. Section Four considers some other, related issues that may support or challenge armed interventions: international law, state sovereignty, the selectivity problem, political realism, post-colonialist and feminist critiques, and pacifism.