Military Intervention in the name of Democracy?

Document from the year 2016 in the subject Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, , language: English, abstract: President Obama acknowledged in the final State of the Union Address of his presidency last January 2016, 'we should have learnt by now the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq'. The country that flags itself as the land of freedom and democracy, justifies their militarily interventions abroad by reasons of US security and placement of democracy. At this point one would wonder, could democracy really be implemented through foreign military intervention? This paper will analyse: In the first place, the legal basis established by the United Nations to consider a military intervention lawful, and the democratic mechanisms of adoption within domestic law systems to decide whether to initiate a military intervention. Secondly, the moral basis to impose democracy abroad and the criteria to choose the country that will be object of change. And finally, how successful was the implementation of democracy in countries which were dictatorial regimes such as Iraq and Afghanistan. This paper finds that the imposition of democracy by force is not justified under international law and that imposition by force is not democratic. Meanwhile, promoting democracy is democratic and much safer. Iraq and Afghanistan are the living proof of catastrophic implementation. Besides, the justification of invading a country in order to establish democracy loses its credibility when we notice that undemocratic countries are still good allies. Domestically, it is generally the executive power that decides to wage war. This shows that there is little popular participation in such important choices.