The Commission included environmental or natural disasters among the possible events after which the international community could intervene if the State failed to fulfil its responsibility to protect its population. But in 2005, when the doctrine of the responsibility to protect was included in a UN outcome document, environmental disasters were abandoned as grounds for intervention. The document states that it is the responsibility of each state to protect its citizens from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” If a State fails to do so, the document states, it is the responsibility of the international community to protect the population of that State under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VII includes the use of military force by the international community when peaceful action proves insufficient. The UN outcome document was adopted unanimously by all member states, but is not legally binding. Despite their supposed illegality, there is no denying the existence of humanitarian interventions. The glaring absence of legally “binding” material for humanitarian interventions has led to a situation of legal black holes. There are no legal regulations regulating the exemption of humanitarian interventions from the use of force, as is the case for the use of collective security measures and self-defence. Commentators advocating humanitarian intervention argue that if humanitarian intervention were legal, the cost of potential misuse of pretext interventions would outweigh the benefits of altruistic interventions. [14] A pretext for intervention is essentially a case of the use of military force by one state in another state for its own benefit and not for the protection of human rights. [15] An altruistic intervention is one rooted in the fundamental value of protecting human rights. [16] It is obvious that a state does not intervene in another state if it has nothing to gain, and these concerns are logical. What is ignored or perhaps misunderstood in the term “legal” is that it is not only legitimized by the granting of legality, but must be “legally regulated.” The legality of humanitarian intervention does not mean that humanitarian interventions are blindly accepted as legally authorized, but that they are only acceptable if they meet a given standard.
Since the right to self-defence is regulated by law, there is little doubt that a legal provision would be sufficient to rationalize the use of humanitarian intervention. In addition to operational and political issues, there are also legal issues in a military intervention, says Matthew Waxman of the CFR. “Humanitarian/military interventions outside the mandate of the UN Security Council remain a highly controversial area of international law,” he said. And Russia and China have been reluctant in the past to support any form of intervention. In addition to their longstanding policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, they are “particularly concerned that this could set a precedent for the international community to have a say in the treatment of its own, sometimes recalcitrant minorities,” said CFR`s Patrick. While modern discourse seems to be completely unbalanced, a similar approach can be found in theory to intervention in failed states. More pertinently, Mill discussed the position among the “civilized peoples.” considers the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka in June 1987 – which involved delivering aid to the Jaffna peninsula without the consent of the Sri Lankan government, but with a military escort of four Mirage fighters – as a `different cover` for humanitarian intervention, raising the prospect of a broader concept that goes beyond the mere provision of physical protection to threatened civilian populations; Those who helped prepare the 2001 R2P report stressed that it included not only the “responsibility to respond”, but also the “responsibility for prevention” and the “responsibility for reconstruction”. Evans and Sahnoun argued in Foreign Affairs: “Both dimensions have been greatly neglected in the traditional debate about humanitarian intervention. Putting them back in the spotlight should help make the concept of reaction itself more acceptable.
The article highlights the problems of drawing a clear line between humanitarian intervention and self-determination interventions, but tends to obscure the practice seen as favouring one proposal over another; Consider also the author`s sequel, “Humanitarian Intervention in a Community of Power – Part II,” Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 22 (1994): 219-233. Humanitarian interventions have been widely criticized. [51] Intergovernmental bodies and commission reports written by individuals associated with governmental and international careers rarely discussed the distorting selectivity of geopolitics behind humanitarian interventions or the possible hidden motivations of the intervening parties. To find a less veiled critique, one usually has to turn to civil society perspectives, especially those shaped by independent scholars who enjoy academic freedom. [52] 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we stand ready to take timely and decisive collective action through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and, where appropriate, in cooperation with relevant regional organizations, if peaceful means are insufficient and if national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide. War crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress that the General Assembly should continue to consider the responsibility and implications of protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, taking into account the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend, as appropriate and necessary, to assist States in strengthening their capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and to assist those under pressure before crises and conflicts erupt.
In addition to questions of legitimacy, there are other issues that need to be addressed. There is a practical problem. Even if the interventions were generally considered legitimate, there is no consensus on their actual effectiveness or whether they delay or even exacerbate the problems they seek to solve. The question of motivation is also problematic. Is it even possible to act solely on humanitarian grounds? And should motivation play a role? It all depends on the ethical system applied. If it is simply a matter of consequences, as a utility might argue, then an intervention carried out solely in the name of the national interest and leading to a “humanitarian” outcome (e.g., the overthrow of a genocidal leader) could qualify as a humanitarian intervention. Similarly, an intervention carried out in accordance with human rights, if it does not achieve its primary objective, cannot be described as such. These questions continue to fuel the debate. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention has been widely criticized. For many critics, it represents a mode of liberal imperialism.
Similarly, humanitarian intervention has been criticized for forcibly imposing Western notions of rights on other cultures. For others, humanity is merely a rhetorical cover either for the implementation of traditional geopolitical policies or for powerful economic interests. In particular, the failure of the Western powers to intervene in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where no obvious economic or political interests were at stake, shows their hypocrisy. Indeed, Rwanda has become a lightning rod for the debate. For critics of interventionism, this proved that interventions were linked to self-interest. For supporters, Rwanda has been a catastrophic failure and a spur to future action. distinguishes between humanitarian intervention in a broad sense (i.e. motivation to act) and its narrower meaning (i.e.
“as an autonomous justification for the use of armed force in another State”, independently of other justifications) and concludes that “States may be willing to accept humanitarian considerations in order to mitigate occasional violations of the prohibition on the use of force and limit their response accordingly”. Available online by subscription.
Comments are closed.