Why Do Some States Intervene in Humanitarian Crises and Not Others? Lessons From Rwanda and Bosnia

Abstract

This paper discusses how states choose to intervene in mass violence, and what underlying biases could affect that decision. Using the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and the Bosnian Crisis of 1992-1995, I discuss potential reasons why the international community engaged so heavily in Bosnia, and provided minimal support in Rwanda, despite both conflicts being equally brutal. I discuss how states are reluctant to intervene in highly politicized and complex conflicts out of concern for the impacts on their international reputations and their dynamics with future conflicts. I then examine state proximity to conflict, and the potential that states may be concerned with their proximity to conflict impacting their own troops. Finally, I critically analyze if states may be more willing to intervene if a conflict is highly publicized, and the pressures of the media on state intervention. Using evidence from scholarship in the field of political science and international relations, the paper finds that media and information play a significant role in how states choose to intervene, and is a significant player in the decision to engage in a conflict.