Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 42

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
Sobel 2003). One study suggests public support for humanitarian interventions can
help Congress and the presidency overcome and transcend partisan opposition and
ideological constraints (Hildebrandt et al. 2013). The general orientation of the public
may lead policymakers to shield themselves from mass public opinion on foreign
policy (Jacobs and Page 2005).
Yet, the level of public attention or degree of support for humanitarian operations
is unclear. Some assume a policy-driven approach and discuss the notion of human
costs, risk and cost-aversion (Ehrlich and Maestas 2010; Feaver and Gelpi 2004; Gartner
and Segura 1998; Kam and Kinder 2008). According to Donnelly (1993), governments
recognize that the political benefits of humanitarian interventions are low, even if
pursued within a multilateral context. Howell and Pevehouse (2005) contend greater
levels of public support could increase the probability of a successful mission. On the
whole, this literature maintains that public support is largely a function of outcomes
(Berinsky 2009; Gartner 2008; Gelpi, Feaver, and Reifler 2005/2006; Klarevas 2002;
Mueller 1994).
Human Security
With the end of the Cold War, humanitarian action became an important
normative pillar in the emerging new world order. In 1991, the United Nations
Security Council passed Resolution 688 after the Persian Gulf War to assist in the
crisis facing the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The operation did not seek authorization
from the Iraqi government and altered the terms under which states acting through
inter-governmental organizations may intervene. Although this was reinforced by the
U.S.-led mission in Somalia one year later, aid and relief operations in the war-torn
East African country highlighted the risks of intervention (Chopra and Weiss 1992).
State-centric approaches tend to downplay the significance of human security
(Ashley 1983; 1988). Mack’s (2004, 366–367) conceptualization defines human
security in terms of fear of war and violence. Thakur (2004, 347) puts forth a broader
interpretation in arguing that “human security is concerned with the protection of
people from critical life-threatening dangers,” such as natural disasters or structural
conditions. Paris (2001, 87–102) observes that human security seems for some to be an
emerging paradigm that “encompasses everything from substance abuse to genocide.”
Natural disasters can involve significant loss of innocent human life, damage
critical infrastructure, and destruction of social, political, and economic systems,
leaving people vulnerable to hazards and jeopardizing their human security (Bankoff,
Hilhorst, and Frerks 2004; Pelling 2003; Wisner et al. 2003). Strong and effective
humanitarian operations should provide physical and logistical assistance and mitigate
suffering from natural disasters and armed conflicts. These missions are based on
the norm of the right to receive help and the obligation of actors with means and
capabilities to deliver aid to victims (ICRC 1977).
Research demonstrates that normative and ideational factors shape the material
resources and physical capacities of states (Biersteker 1989; Linklater 1998). As Wendt
(1995, 71–81) states, “material resources only acquire meaning for human action
36