Humanitarian Intervention - a dominant theoretical approach?

Question

I'm doing some reading on Humanitarian Intervention and am interested in any good recommendations.

I am particularly interested in what prompts State A to intervene in State B's crisis, and why State C may choose to ignore things. Are there any dominant theorists for the subject?

I know that post-structuralism is often used to deconstruct images of humanitarian crises that demand intervention. But how we jump from "starving boy on a poster" to actual intervention is where I'm a bit lost.

Answer 1

Usually it depends on what they can get out of it ie oil or territorty

Or to sell weapons

PS Ive added an answer to you in the teacher post as you were so wrong and exactly the kind I was refer to who think they are protecting but hurt young people instead.

Much like those who kill kids to protect their family honour.

or those nuns who batter girls in magdelen laundries in ireland.

See posts on realgions if you want to know about kid abuse...

As clearly are uneducated so how about an apology ?

And none of what I have said is bs...

I monitored many of these cases where indeed one had married the girl and she was all defending them and they were happily married for 19 years.

Trying to track him down in newspaper clippings

So I look at that and think... well if it was abuse why they stay together.

Back on topic.

As said the internvetnions are normally for selfish reasons like business, weapon sales, mineral resource deals and strategy.

Answer 2

Dat what I bees thinking ! Yeah ! Does d**n peoples bees trying to jam da A B C down my thraot once to much !