加拿大论文代写：各国不干预主要是出于人道主义目的

过去的各种人道主义干预已经证明，各国不要在异乡牺牲自己的士兵，除非他们有其他动机。因此，这个事实留下的问题是人道主义干预是否可以主要是为了防止人道主义灾难。如果别有用心指导人道主义干预行动，那么行动的结果就无法有效解决眼前的危机。这也表明强大的国家只有在适合它们时才会进行干预，干预战略是根据其国家利益而不是受影响的受害者来计算的。这个原因得到了过去各种人道主义干预的支持。尽管成员国迅速反驳这些说法，但干预的基础可以清楚地看到其他因素的动机。

加拿大论文代写：States do not intervene primarily for Humanitarian Purposes

It has been proved through various past humanitarian interventions that states do not sacrifice their own soldiers in a foreign land unless they have other motives for doing so. This fact therefore, leaves the question as to whether humanitarian interventions can be carried out primarily for the reason of preventing humanitarian disaster. With other ulterior motives guiding the humanitarian intervention, the outcome of the action can not be effective in addressing the crisis at hand. This also points to the fact that the powerful states will only intervene when it suits them and the intervention strategies are calculated based on their national interest and not of the affected victims (Bellamy, & Nicholas, 527). This reason has been backed up by various humanitarian interventions that have been carried in the past. Even though the member states have been quick to refute these claims, the basis of their intervention can be seen clearly motivated by other factors.

加拿大论文代写：国家的主要角色和责任是保护他们的公民

国家和政治领导人的主要责任和任务是保护公民不受伤害，不会伤害他们。在人道主义干预期间，作为干预国公民的士兵被派去干预外国的土地，干预的伤亡是不可避免的。在大多数情况下，干涉国的士兵在保护外国人时被杀害。政治领导人和政府在道义上没有权利代表外国人受苦流离开自己的公民血。根据比克的说法，“公民是他们国家的专属责任，他们的国家完全是他们自己的事情”。因此，如果民事当局发生分裂或行为方式导致公民遭受人道主义灾难，那么该州和政治领导人有责任保护公民。因此，现实主义学派认为，干涉国家的公民在执行该国的角色时面临风险的人道主义干预在道德上是不正确的。 

加拿大论文代写：State’s Primary Role and Responsibility is to protect their Citizens

The state and the political leaders have a primary responsibility and role which is to protect their citizens against harm and not put them in the way of harm. During humanitarian interventions, soldiers who are citizens of the intervening state are sent to intervene in a foreign land where casualties for the intervention are inevitable. In most cases, soldiers of the intervening state are killed as they protect foreigners. Political leaders and the government do not morally have the right to shed their own citizen’s blood on behalf of suffering foreigners. According to Bikkhu (56)“citizens are the exclusive responsibility of their state, and their state is entirely their own business”. Therefore, in the case of civil authority breaking down or behaving in a manner that causes humanitarian disaster to the citizens, it is the responsibility of that state and the political leaders to protect its citizens. Therefore, the realist school of thought argues that humanitarian intervention in which the citizens of the intervening state are put at risk in executing the roles of that state is not morally right.

加拿大论文代写：滥用人道主义干预的可能性

其他国家担心会滥用人道主义干预方式，并掩盖追求其国家的自身利益。人道主义干预是为了提供武装力量的人道主义援助。然而，一些州可能会滥用武力，以谋求国家的自身利益，这可能对国家的干预造成更大的伤害。滥用的典型例子是德国入侵捷克斯洛伐克，希特勒认为有必要保护该国德国国民的“生命和自由”。通过建立人道主义干预的权利，强国将有理由干涉弱国的事务。人们应该认识到，德国的干涉仅仅是为了扩大其边界到较弱的邻国的利益。反对人道主义干预的批评者认为，干预权不会导致更真正的“人道主义”干预，因为自身利益而不是主权一直是干预的主要障碍。只要干预的国家有其他理由干预国家的事务而不是人道主义，滥用人道主义干预是不可避免的。

加拿大论文代写：The possibility of Abuse of Humanitarian Intervention

There is the worry of other states abusing the humanitarian intervention approach and cover the pursuit of their national self-interest. The humanitarian intervention was established with the intention of providing humanitarian assistance in terms of armed force. However, some states may abuse the used of armed forces in pursuit of national self-interest which may cause more harm than good for the state being intervened (Tesson, n.p). A classic example of abuse was German’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in which Hitler argued that it was necessary so as to protect ‘life and liberty’ of German nationals in that country. By establishing the right of humanitarian intervention, the powerful states will be justified in interfering with the affairs of the weaker states. It was to be realized that German’s intervention was solely based with the interest of expanding its borders into the weaker neighboring states. Critics against the humanitarian intervention argue that the right to intervention would not lead to more genuine ‘humanitarian’ interventions as self-interest and not sovereignty has been the main barrier of intervention. As long as intervening states will have other reasons to intervene in a state’s affair other than humanitarian, abuse of the humanitarian intervention is inevitable.

加拿大论文代写：干预不起作用

批评者认为，人道主义干预行不通，因为外国人不可能将人权强加给另一个国家的公民。国家是通过本国公民的知情同意而形成的。约翰·斯图亚特在他的论据中指出，通过家庭内部的自由斗争，民主是最好的。因此，如果由外部人强制执行或强加人权，难以建立人权。在大多数干预过去的案件中，干预者或者卷入了无休止的承诺，或者在某些情况下，一旦他们离开，就会滥用人权。因此，如果要强制执行人权，有人认为，被压迫人民应该能够推翻暴政，以便自己强加于人。外部人员可以帮助指导但不能领导整个过程。因此，人道主义干预在防止人道主义灾难方面被认为是不成功的。 

加拿大论文代写：Intervention does not Work

Critics argue that humanitarian intervention does not work as it is impossible for foreigners to impose human rights on citizens of another state. States are formed through the informed consent of their own citizens. In his arguments, John Stuart (377) states that democracy is best established through domestic struggle for liberty. Therefore, it is difficult for human rights to be established if they are enforced or imposed by outsiders. In most of the intervention past cases, the interveners have either found themselves embroiled in an unending commitment or in some cases abuse of human rights re-ignite once they depart. Therefore, if human rights are to be enforced and imposed, it is argued that the oppressed people should be able to overthrow the tyrannical government so as to impose them by their own. The outsiders can lend a hand in guiding but not leading the whole process. Therefore, humanitarian interventions are deemed unsuccessful in preventing humanitarian disasters.