

































IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

16 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

At What Cost? Examining the Efficacy of Military Intervention 
 

Keunhee Kim 
 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

According to the United Nations, human rights are the rights to which all people are equally and 
fairly entitled. Among these are: to be free from slavery and torture, to express themselves, to 
work and be educated, and to life itself (Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Globalization has 
been a powerful means to deal with crucial issues integral to the sanctity of human life by 
bringing international attention and support from around the world to violations of human rights. 
The military efforts of NATO and the UN forces are ready examples of the global initiative 
against human rights violations; however, they are not without their cost. This is evidenced by 
the general ineffectiveness of military interventions, seen in conflicts such as the Iraq War which 
led to the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (1999-present) (Lopez, 2020), 
the Somali Civil War (1989/1991-present), the Kosovo War (1998-1999), and the Bosnian War 
(1992-1995). In order to provide an in-depth analysis, this paper limits its purview to the Kosovo 
War and the Bosnian War. The high casualty rates, impact of refugees, and destabilization to 
international societies during the Kosovo War, and then again three years later in the Bosnian 
War, show how difficult military intervention is for protecting human rights. Instead, the 
international society should explore non-violent alternatives—economic sanctions and cyber-
attacks—and work together to combat human rights violations. The importance of global 
collaboration in non-violent intervention can be used, for example, to cease North Korea’s mass 
human rights abuses under the current dictatorship. While the U.S. government’s sanctions are 
not the most effective, and focus more on nuclear rather than human rights issues, scholars have 
speculated that sanctions from stronger trading partners will have a real impact on the situation; 
thus, non-violent approaches call for international collaboration. This paper examines the 
scholarship on armed interventions and argues that military interventions even for humanitarian 
purposes are not justifiable for two reasons: the negative global impact of war and the inability of 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

17 
 

military solutions to solve the repeated tensions that lead to their respective wars. Additionally, 
this paper examines the potential effectiveness and risk-mitigation of non-violent alternatives 
and urges international alliances for higher capability in mitigating the issue of human rights 
violations.  



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

18 
 

Introduction 
Globalization has been a powerful means to deal with crucial issues integral to the 

sanctity of human life by bringing international attention and support from around the world to 
violations of human rights. After World War II, the United Nations formulated an inclusive 
“international human rights law” to combat existent and potential violations of human rights, 
such as genocide (CNN Wire, 2020, p. 1). Countries have adopted the United Nations’ principles 
and therefore bear the responsibility to ensure that individual citizens retain their fundamental 
human rights. No matter what, human rights should be valued above national interests as means 
to a successful cosmopolitan society. A growing number of people are examining egregious 
human rights abuses and ethnic persecutions (Coady, 2002, p.1). For example, North Korean 
defectors reported torture and other atrocities committed by the North Korean regime to the UN 
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2013 (Keesing’s Record of World Events, 2013, p.2). North 
Korean defectors and South Korean governmental members have advocated for an international 
action on North Korea. However, over the past decades, the politics and ethics of military 
intervention in response to humanitarian issues has been controversial. Americans debated 
whether armed intervention in Vietnam was morally justified, having demonstrations against the 
brutal violence of the war effort. This paper examines the scholarship on armed interventions and 
argues that military interventions even for humanitarian purposes are not justifiable for two 
reasons: the negative global impact of war and the inability of military solutions to solve the 
repeated tensions that lead to their respective wars. Additionally, this paper examines the 
potential risk-mitigation of non-violent alternatives and urges international alliances to take on 
the obligation in remedying the issue of human rights violations. 

 
Background in International Human Rights Scholarship    

Every person is equally entitled to their human rights regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, 
age, religion, language, or any other status. The United Nations (UN) defines this principle in 
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (The United Nations, 1948). 
The Canadian philosopher Kimberley Brownlee points out that a violation of human rights is a 
matter of cardinal importance; with globalization, international organizations and governmental 
actors increasingly address and attempt to prevent human rights violations as a priority matter 
(2013). For example, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 
(OHCHR) and the Human Rights Council (OHCHR, 2020) established the International Human 
Rights Treaties. The OHCHR issues publications to raise awareness of human rights violations in 
the world. Despite international efforts, human rights abuses still occur in countries around the 
world. Human Rights Watch reports that female genital mutilation has been globally practiced on 
more than 140 million females, mostly on young girls under 15 years-old, for non-medical 
reasons, but for cultural or religious reasons such as the coming-of-age ceremony (2010). 

Scholars disagree about whether human rights abuses justify international armed 
intervention. While some scholars maintain that international armed forces should intervene in 
cases of human rights abuses, they often argue that war should be the last resort (De Waal & 
Omaar, 1994, p. 6). Alex De Waal and Rakiya Omaar illustrate that if military forces are needed 
to intervene, they should maintain a neutral position (p. 8). However, people should think about 
whether military intervention is an ethically justifiable method; preceding military intervention, 
De Waal and Omaar claim that relief and diplomatic efforts should be prioritized (p. 7). 
Ironically, military intervention can result in more human rights abuses in the end, leading to 
higher casualties and refugees. Beyond thinking about the rationale for military interventions, 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

19 
 

they also call for accurate and independent evaluations of the scale and nature of humanitarian 
needs (p. 7). Additionally, they point out that military intervention may not necessarily address 
the strategic context of a disaster (p. 8). Finally, they state that intervening forces should strive 
for neutrality and be accountable (p. 8). In summary, De Waal and Omaar assert that 
international military intervention for human rights abuses can work, but it should be the last 
resort. 

Many scholars think that even though the aim of military intervention is to stop human 
rights abuses, armed intervention cannot be justified. For example, Political Science scholar 
Dursun Peksen argues that regardless of the intentions of the intervening force, foreign armed 
intervention of any kind does not help human rights abuses (2012). Indeed, supportive, neutral, 
or hostile interventions all promote domestic instability across the nation. Interventions in 
general only increase the occurrences of human rights abuses via “more violence, humanitarian 
disasters, and other instabilities given the inherent link between the respect for human rights and 
the maintenance of peace and security” (Peksen, p. 568). Military interventions—regardless of 
their intention or strategic approach and despite their humanitarian goals—lead to violence, 
instability, and further human rights violations.   

Generally, armed conflict has damage global societies in numerous ways. Political 
scientist Arben Qirezi shows Serbians used “self-determination strategies” against Albanian 
populations, which called for the genocide of the Kosovo War (2016). Three years after the 
Bosnian War, the Serbians repeated this genocide against a different target, Albanians. Qirezi 
delicately described the aftermath of the war and international military intervention against 
Serbians’ human rights abuses. For example, Qirezi highlights that during the Kosovo War, there 
were a lot of civilian deaths and a mass exodus to neighboring countries due to the effect the war 
had on the population (2016, pp. 39-22). Political science professor Richard Regan provides 
specific numbers of refugees from the aftermath of the Bosnian war (2013). In both cases, the 
sudden and heavy influx of refugees into countries that were unprepared, stressed, and taxed of 
their resources, made Kosovo, Bosnia, and other neighboring countries unstable.   

While military intervention may seem to be an immediately effective option, Haggard 
and Noland argue that the international community should work together towards a non-violent 
interventionist approach to resolve the underlying issues of conflicts and put pressure on a 
country that repeatedly violates human rights; one example being North Korea (2011). They also 
show possible effective non-violent strategies in terms of international financial and diplomatic 
isolation through sanctions to compel the target to listen to the international community (2011).  

 
Scholarly Positions for Intervention 

Scholars point out violations of human rights that have been committed around the world. 
North Korea has rampantly infringed for some time on personal rights such as forced labor, 
murder, torture, rape, forced abortion, religious and racial persecution, and deliberate starvation 
(Human Rights Watch, 2014, p. 360). Therefore, the UNHRC established a committee in 2013 to 
carry out formal inquiries to examine the human rights situation in North Korea (Human Rights 
Watch, 2014, p. 360). International communities have been appealing for help to stop and to 
prevent systemic human rights abuses under the totalitarian regime. Given these ongoing human 
rights abuses and countries’ involvement, such research is significant in making non-violent 
interventions more palatable. 

Nevertheless, there is some disagreement in scholarship on international armed 
intervention for humanitarian purposes. Some scholars have the point of view that armed 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

20 
 

intervention can work to discourage human rights abuses, but they believe that armed conflict 
should be the last resort. Alex De Waal and Rakiya Omaar are of this opinion and believe that 
when armed forces intervene, they should maintain a neutral position focusing on verifying facts 
without bias (1994, p. 8). In contrast, Dursun Peksen refutes Waal and Omaar’s idea pointing out 
that supportive or even neutral interventions cannot solve human rights abuses (2012). Military 
interventions, which take a supportive or neutral stance towards the government of a country, 
make extrajudicial killing, disappearance, political imprisonment, and torture more likely to 
occur (Peksen, 2012, p. 558). Notably, Dursun Peksen’s stance is an argument against taking a 
neutral position when it comes to international military intervention for humanitarian purposes. 
To illustrate this point, Richard Regan notes that the neutral intervention does not work because, 
in the Bosnian War, even though the Security Council created six “safe areas” for people in 
Bosnia, these were attacked by Serbians who continued to violate human rights of Bosniaks 
(2013, p. 207). The UN attempted to maintain neutral positions. Yet, this did not have a desired 
result as the Serbians did not acknowledge the neutrality of the UN.  

Military intervention is not without its fault. De Waal and Omaar highlight that war leads 
to other mass human rights abuses by creating high rates of casualties, orphans, and refugees 
(1994). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and 
the UNHCR provide specific numerical information to support this. The OHCHR examines the 
number of unlawful killings to civilians due to armed conflicts between both parties (2015). 
During the Sri Lankan Civil War, the government estimated the number of people who were 
affected by the conflict to be only 100,000, but later acknowledged an estimated 300,000 people 
were affected (p. 51). The UNHCR points out that post World War II, wars and conflicts have 
caused around 51.2 million people to seek refuge in neighboring countries (2014, p. 5). 
Altogether, the consequences of armed intervention are further abuses to human rights, which 
counters the aim of the international military intervention to reduce human rights abuses. 

Even De Waal and Omaar are aware of the seriousness of this aspect, and they think that 
the most important part in terms of international military intervention, is whether or not the 
military force can do the job (1994, p. 7). They maintain that even if military intervention takes 
place for human rights abuses, armed intervention cannot be the preferred strategy (p. 7). In other 
words, since most modern armed forces utilize highly developed weapons and technologies to 
win a war in a short period of time, they predict that there would be more or worse violations of 
human rights during or after the war (p. 7). De Waal and Omaar describe armed intervention for 
humanitarian purposes in Somalia in 1992 and show the drawbacks of international military 
intervention to solve human rights violations (1994, p. 7). This is why they believe that 
international military intervention for humanitarian purposes should be the last step to resolve 
violations of human rights.  

On the whole, military intervention for humanitarian purposes is still a controversial 
issue. On one hand, scholars such as Dursun Peksen acknowledge the benefits of armed 
intervention. Other scholars such as Arben Qirezi, Regan, Haggard, and Nolan also provide 
realistic reasons why armed intervention is not justifiable even though it is to protect human 
rights. In contrast, De Waal and Omaar provide reasons why international military intervention 
cannot be justified for humanitarian purposes.  

 
The Cost of Violent Intervention 
 Taking all the scholarly positions into consideration, international military intervention 
cannot be justified, even if it has humanitarian purposes, due to its usual severe negative global 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

21 
 

impact. First of all, Richard Regan (2013) and Arben Qirezi (2016) elucidate the aftermath of 
war, making examples of the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War; wars which only settled after 
international military forces intervened. The Bosnian War occurred from April 6th in 1992 to 
December 14th, 1995. In 1992, the society was composed of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), 
Bosnian-Serbians, and some other ethnicities (Regan, 2013, p.199). The incident began with the 
declaration of independence of Bosniaks. With the spread of nationalism, Serbians, who did not 
support and even resisted the independence of the Bosniaks, fanned the flames of their desire to 
create a Great Serbia. Serbians started the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks in order to force them to 
flee. Regan pointed out that the Serbians committed vile atrocities on Bosniaks, especially in the 
Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, where Serbians massacred the civilians with artillery (Regan, 2013, 
p.199). Despite several attempts by the UN, Serbia's violation of human rights continued. To 
remedy the human rights abuses, NATO externally intervened by employing air strikes against 
the Serbians, after which the Serbians backed down (Regan, 2013, p. 210).  
 Ostensibly, the military intervention ended the Bosnian War, but the cost of the armed 
intervention must be taken into consideration. Throughout the violence, Bosnia lost many lives, 
and even after the war, Bosnians suffered. Richard Regan described that during the war, 
2,000,000 Bosnians became refugees and fled to neighboring countries (Regan, 2013, pp. 203-
204). The OHCHR defines a refugee as, one who is forcefully displaced “owing to a well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a 
particular social group or political opinion” and stipulates how all different kinds of human rights 
should be protected (OHCHR, 2020). Regan also points out that most residential areas and cities 
were destroyed, and people suffered from shortage of indispensable resources (Regan, 2013, pp. 
203-204). These repercussions are consistent with Brownlee’s description of human rights 
violations (2013). 
  

Secondly, international armed involvement cannot be justified by human rights 
violations, since the military force cannot resolve the tension underneath the war or prevent 
repetition of conflict. The critical loophole of military intervention is that it can only be a 
temporary solution for humanitarian purposes as examined in the Bosnian and Kosovo Wars. 
Less than three years after the Bosnian War ended, Serbians again violated human rights against 
Albanian populations in Kosovo. The Kosovo War is considered to be another instance ethnic 
cleansing and occurred between May 5th, 1998 and June 11th, 1999. Serbia had an unfulfilled 
desire for the Great Serbia, so it wanted an annexation; however, Albanians fought for their 
independence. When a Serbian police officer who went out for patrol was killed by an Albanian, 
Serbian aggressors used his death as an excuse to massacre Albanians (Qirezi, 2016). Serbia sent 
troops to kill Albanian civilians. In June of 1998, the United States of America and the European 
Union demanded the withdrawal of the Serbian military and the termination of the massacre of 
Albanian civilians. However, Serbians ignored the ultimatum and occupied an Albanian military 
base. The bloodshed dragged on for a year until NATO intervened yet again to stop the 
escalation of the conflict.  

The military intervention of NATO did not solve the core issue underlying the war, even 
if it was for a humanitarian cause. Serbians infringed upon human rights with the same reasons 
and with the same strategies in the Kosovo War as they did in the Bosnian War. Even though 
NATO stopped Serbians’ human rights abuses temporarily with its military attacks, Serbia 
repeated the violations later against another target. Therefore, the Kosovo War had most of the 
severe negative impacts not only domestically but also internationally. Arben Qirezi and Regan 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

22 
 

show that military intervention has critical limitations to prevent further conflicts and human 
rights abuses by giving numerical information and specific events. For instance, Arben Qirezi 
highlights that during the Kosovo War, 13,321 of civilians died or went missing and about 
164,000 people left Kosovo due to the aftermath of the war (Arben Qirezi, 2016, p.5).  

Another inability of international military intervention that can be shown from both the 
Bosnian and Kosovo War is that if external powers is what it took to force an end of tensions, 
then the major fault that led to a war would have remained, so that continuous conflict would last 
for a long time. For instance, Arben Qirezi focuses on the discord between Serbians and 
Albanians after the formal peace agreement at the end of the war with an example of an outbreak 
of ethnic riots by Albanians against Serbians in 2004 (2016, p.57). Qirezi stresses the point that 
since the delicate relationship between the two groups was determined by external intervention, 
“this unresolved dispute continues to foster both group insecurity and regional instability” (2016, 
p.37). This demonstrates that external military intervention by force cannot solve main conflicts 
that initiated a feud between both parties. While the military intervention may work on the 
surface issue, it does not present as a sustainable and long-term strategy. 

Lastly, due to the negative consequences of armed conflicts, as shown above, 
international society should seek for sustainable, non-violent alternative strategies of intervention 
and cooperation for humanitarian purposes. For example, by collectively putting pressure on a 
target country and by isolating it from the global society—financially and diplomatically—in 
order to weaken the target regime and protect its citizens’ human rights.  

What could be a good alternative or remedy for the international community in regard to 
the severe drawbacks of military intervention? Haggard and Nolan point out “the difficulty the 
United States had in mobilizing pressure on North Korea” (Haggard & Nolan, 2011, p.14). As 
the United States has a much weaker trade relationship with North Korea than China and South 
Korea, non-violent interventions like sanctions have little effect and are not very persuasive 
(p.14). However, if stronger trade partners like China and South Korea, who account for “55 
percent to 80 percent of North Korea’s trade,” were to sanction North Korea, their efforts would 
be much more effective in pressuring the regime (Haggard & Nolan, 2011, p.16). Haggard and 
Nolan also argue that the international community should team up against the target country 
financially and diplomatically with an example of North Korea (2011, p.14). They highlight that 
China’s commerce made about 2.7 billion dollars of trade with North Korean commerce in 2007 
(Haggard & Nolan, 2011, Figure 4). This enormous foreign capital enables North Korea to 
maintain their communist regime, which leads to systemic human rights violations. As North 
Koreans are educated to worship the Kim dynasty, anyone who defies Kim’s regime will be 
tortured or even killed (Larsen, 2020; Edwards, 2015). The unique structure of the dictatorship of 
North Korea, which concentrates power in the hands of a single dynasty, enables systemic 
human rights abuses such as torture, murder, rape, and arbitrary detention (Choe, 2020). 
Therefore, it is important to financially and diplomatically isolate North Korea from the 
international community in order to protect human rights.  

Haggard and Nolan insist that the whole international society should cooperate to 
strategically isolate North Korea, forcing them to back down (2011, p.14). For example, the 
scholars highlight the decrease in trading between Japan/South Korea and North Korea as well as 
the increase in trading between China and North Korea. The author stresses the point that 
“despite the high partner concentration of North Korea’s trade, its vulnerability to sanctions has 
not necessarily increased. Those countries more inclined to sanction North Korea—the United 
States and Japan—have negligible economic exchange with the country” (Haggard and Nolan, 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

23 
 

2011, p.16). That is to say, even though nations concerned about human rights violations are 
enacting diplomatic/financial non-violent interventions, such as sanctions, those nations, like the 
United States, do not significantly affect North Korea’s earnings from foreign capital. Countries 
that are weak trading partners with the offending nation will have little pressure on the offending 
nation and thus have a small effect in their intervention.   

The active commercial trade between North Korea and China is a large enabler of North 
Korea and its operations. If China and other significant trade partners of North Korea were to get 
on board with the rest of the world and sanction North Korea, this collaboration could become a 
method of putting pressure on a country for certain demands. The international community 
should be in alliance with each other by signing treaties which might allow them to backfill their 
economic losses that are derived from the economic sanctions against the target country to stop 
its human rights abuses. This means that if the global society does not work together and only 
thinks about their own interests, the financial/diplomatic isolation would not be as effective in 
getting any country to listen to the international community. The coalition should prioritize 
human rights over instant gratification, like economical gains, for the benefit of global 
prosperity. The international community should ensure to propagate the idea of human rights so 
that all of mankind can fully understand that they deserve to have human rights and human rights 
abuses should not be tolerated.   

 
Conclusion: Violent Intervention is Never Justifiable 
 Infringement upon individual human rights should be combated with more effective and 
non-violent joint efforts of the international community. There are some disagreements amongst 
scholars whether armed intervention can be justified or not. International military intervention 
has been shown to have a negative global impact and to be ineffective at solving the tensions 
underlying the wars and situations in which human rights violations occur. Additionally, the 
global society should strive to improve non-violent alternative intervention strategies such as 
financial and diplomatic sanctions and cooperatively implement them for humanitarian purposes. 
The International community should fight against injustice in its society and regrasp the ideal of 
inborn human rights, but this can only be done if it is pursued non-violently and in one accord. 
Should the international community choose to commit to joint, non-violent intervention for the 
sake of human rights, military intervention and all its downsides may never again be necessary.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

24 
 

References 

Brownlee, K. (2013). A HUMAN RIGHT AGAINST SOCIAL DEPRIVATION. The 

Philosophical Quarterly, 63(251), 199-222. Retrieved from 

www.jstor.org/stable/24672421 

C. A. J. Coady, U.S. Institute of Peace. (2002). The ethics of armed humanitarian intervention. 

Policy Papers. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-

com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentIte

m:4789-38H0-0108-P042-00000-00&context=1516831 

De Waal, A., & Omaar, R. (1994). Can Military Intervention Be "Humanitarian"? Middle East 

Report. 2-8. Retrieved from doi:10.2307/3012587 

Genocide Fast Facts. (2020). CNN Wire. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-

com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentIte

m:5YJG-SJH1-DY7V-G04M-00000-00&context=1516831 

Haggard, S., & Noland, M. (2011). Engaging North Korea: The Role of Economic Statecraft. 

East-West Center. Retrieved from 14-30 doi:10.2307/resrep21457.7 

Human Rights Watch. (2014). North Korea. In World report 2014: Events of 2013. Bristol 

University Press. 360-364. Retrieved from doi:10.2307/j.ctt17mvk6w.52 

Peksen, D. (2012). Does Foreign Military Intervention Help Human Rights? Political Research 

Quarterly, 65(3), 558-571. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/41635255 

Qirezi, A. (2016). SETTLING THE SELF-DETERMINATION DISPUTE IN KOSOVO. In 

Mehmeti L. & Radeljić B. (Eds.), Kosovo and Serbia: Contested Options and 

Shared Consequences. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. 37-62. 

Retrieved from doi:10.2307/j.ctt1qv5n21.9 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

25 
 

Regan, R. (2013). THE BOSNIAN WAR (1992–95). In Just War, Second Edition. Washington, 

D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 198-218. Retrieved from 

doi:10.2307/j.ctt5vj8j2.18 

Revision of founding principles of ruling party. (2013, August). 59.(8), 52787-88. Retrieved 

from http://www.keesings.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/index_new.php?page=a

rticle&article=52835n01prk&search=%22Revision%20of%20founding%20princi

ples%20of%20ruling%20party%22  

The International Human Right Treaties, and Human Rights Council. (2020). Convention 

relating to the Status of Refugees. Retrieved from 

https://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Prof

essionalInterest/refugees.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1 

The International Human Right Treaties, and Human Rights Council. (2015). Last phase and 

aftermath of the armed conflict. Retrieved from 

https://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/HR

Bodies/HRCouncil/OISL/LastPhase.doc&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



IJOIS Fall 2020, Volume VII Program in Arms Control & Domestic 
and International Security  

26 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


