Should Rights NGOs Ever Advocate Armed Intervention in Human Rights Crises?
Another issue discussed was whether human rights groups should ever affirmatively call for or oppose armed international intervention, or whether the best policy for rights groups is to maintain neutrality (to say “this is not our issue”). Amnesty International, for example, has a “no position” policy regarding humanitarian intervention, neither criticizing nor supporting any intervention. Human Rights Watch, on the other hand, follows the principle that “the human rights movement should urge military intervention when it is the last feasible option to stop genocide or comparable mass slaughter, so long as intervention is likely to do more good than harm…” (Human Rights Dialogue 2 (5): 21). But even Human Rights Watch rarely is vocal about decisions to intervene. Is neutrality a satisfactory response in the face of crises? Should human rights NGOs be more vocal in their opinions of states’ actions? In the Winter 2001 issue of Human Rights Dialogue, Robert Myers described what he call
