Humanitarian Intervention and Sovereignty: A Normative Conflict in Canada

Purpose: The aim of the study was to analyze the humanitarian intervention and sovereignty: a normative conflict in Canada. Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: Canada’s approach to humanitarian intervention and sovereignty is shaped by the tension between traditional non-intervention norms and the imperative to prevent mass atrocities. This normative conflict came to the fore when Canada played a pivotal role in framing the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) concept through the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, essentially recasting sovereignty as a duty to protect citizens rather than a shield against external scrutiny. While many Canadians support humanitarian intervention on moral grounds demonstrated through involvement express concern about the selectivity and potential abuse of humanitarian justifications, echoing broader global fears over infringing on state sovereignty. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Realism, Liberalism & Constructivism theory may be used to anchor future studies on humanitarian intervention and sovereignty: a normative conflict in Canada. Regional organizations should be empowered to take the lead in addressing humanitarian crises within their respective territories, with the support of the international community, to foster legitimacy and respect for sovereignty. Policymakers should work to revise and strengthen international legal frameworks to reflect the evolving dynamics of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention.