A humanitarian and for a common superior good

A just war must take into account the motivation,
for justification the war should be humanitarian and for a common superior good
of a majority, with a proportional response as opposed to the threat (LawTeacher).
Nevertheless, though there are reasons to rationalize the acts and processes of
intervention, it is inescapable to make debates among critics whether intervention
was necessary or not. In 1990 August 2nd, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Making
the standards for humanitarian intervention is needed. Even in humanitarian
intervention, military action should not be taken not seriously. For instance,
in the procedure of rescuing people exposed to slaughter, it should be reminded
that their purpose is ‘Rescuing’, not killing all the people on the opposite
side, taking economic or political superiority by the war, or enlarging the
territory. Military intervention must be contemplated over a number of times
before it comes into action. As Michael Walzer had suggested, a threshold
matter is absolutely important that loss of life should be prevented. However, in
humanitarian paradigm, only the mass slaughter would permit the use for
military force. The loss of lives involving military force would be larger if
there is a small number of abuses. There is a significant influence of military
force, so using other kinds of intervention like speech and economic aid or
blockade should be used. Using military force should be the last option to prevent
massacre. Next, the intervention should be directed mainly by a humanitarian
purpose. Furthermore, the military force should follow international human
rights and humanitarian-perspective law. They should assure that the way used
to intervene themselves. Fourth, after the military action, it should provoke harm.
Humanitarian intervention should not be attempted if it is like to cause a significant
decrease in economic supply or more pain.