Three Types of Armed Interventions

There are three types of Armed Interventions; Unilaterally in self-defense, multilateral in order to restore peace and multilateral as a regional collective defense action (Viotti and Kauppi, 2007)

The only conflicts that I could foresee would be between unilateral self-defense and through a multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council. The conflict arises when a country has been attacked. They want to go ahead and retaliate on the offender, but the U N Security Council may see it differently. They may want to negotiate a peaceful solution before a situation can escalate into a war conflict. Secondly, if both countries are part of the UN the situation would definitely be a lot more complex. In the case of humanitarian intervention, the conflict is not a great because of its legitimacy. According to Article III of The Legitimacy Of Armed Humanitarian Intervention, The Jus ad Bellum, is the right to use force in international relations. If I were President of the United States, my criteria would be very simple; utilize the criteria already in place, because it covers all the bases. When to intervene, when to protect, and when to retaliate would be the primary questions that I would ask myself when putting any new criteria in place. Ralph K. White states in his book, that recent problems for the United States, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti have given new urgency to an old need for hard thinking-based on previous experiences, whether armed intervention is wise or unwise (Peace and Conflict,1995).

The presidency of Woodrow Wilson offers the best case study for analyzing the employment of armed power in international affairs. No other American president before or since used force more often than he. Within four

years, from April 1914 to July 1918, Wilson resorted to force twice in Mexico, in Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, in World War I, in northern Russia, and in Siberia. Thus, his presidency provides a wide...

...