A Need for a Global Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention by the United Nations (original) (raw)
Related papers
In the past few decades, states have faced what I call the humanitarian intervention dilemma. When the Security Council is deadlocked and cannot react to grave human rights violations because of the veto power, states are faced with the tough choice of respecting rules of non- intervention and sovereignty – i.e. respecting international law – or following moral imperatives of protecting other human beings. This paper aims at exploring ways to fill this gap between legality and moral legitimacy. It argues that there are indeed moral bases for humanitarian interventions, which can be (and have been) used to justify illegal unilateral interventions. It analyses the potential of the Just War to solve the dilemma while responding to critics and reducing risks of abuse. In order to support these arguments, this paper turns to the analysis of the intervention of NATO in Kosovo in 1999, and asks the following question: is this intervention illegal, but legitimate? This intervention is therefore put to the test of the Just War criteria, in order to show how they can be used to assess the legitimacy of such an illegal humanitarian intervention. I conclude that should this set of criteria be strictly followed and applied, it indeed has great potential to solve the dilemma.
The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
2014
The question of military intervention for humanitarian purposes is a major focus for international law, the United Nations, regional organizations such as NATO, and the foreign policies of nations. Against this background, the 2011 bombing in Libya by Western nations has occasioned renewed interest and concern about armed humanitarian intervention (AHI) and the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). This volume brings together new essays by leading international, philosophical, and political thinkers on the moral and legal issues involved in AHI, and contains both critical and positive views of AHI. Topics include the problem of abuse and needed limitations, the future viability of RtoP and some of its problematic implications, the possibility of AHI providing space for peaceful political protest, and how AHI might be integrated with post-war justice. It is an important collection for those studying political philosophy, international relations, and humanitarian law.
THE EVOLVING LEGITIMACY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS
Debates about humanitarian action in complex emergencies raise fundamental problems about the protection of human rights under international law. As UN peacekeeping missions become increasingly more complex and multifaceted, for example, they face accountability deficits. Many of the largest UN missions have authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to use force to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence. This raises a number of issues related to the UN’s negative and positive obligations under international law. The UN Charter itself contains no express basis for peacekeeping, which has developed in an ad hoc manner in response to different crises. Some States have also acted outside the framework of the UN Charter justifying military action in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’. This paper explores some of the principled and practical dilemmas related to the extraterritorial protection of civilians through both unilateral and multilateral action within the framework of international law.
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: A UNIVERSAL STANDARD?
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: A UNIVERSAL STANDARD? , 2018
This study explores the concept of humanitarian intervention and investigates whether human intervention can connect to a universal standard. The fundamental cause of humanitarian intervention is the response of human rights violations by a state, and thus the intervention to the state. Human rights thoughts are the taboo in the modern world and state sovereignty is one of the signi cant international rights. Nevertheless, the humanitarian intervention is an exception of the state sovereignty, but when? In this context, it is explained what human intervention is, the change in history and time. The political memory of the period and the positions of the states have led to humanitarian intervention decisions. The question of what the limits are is one of the problems of this study and has been assessed and compare with the sovereignty of states and the obligation of protection in international law. It has been argued whether international law will be a social contract. Also, it mentioned in the literature on ethics of humanitarian intervention for understanding the legal and theoretical bases of humanitarian intervention decisions. Is humanitarian intervention that identi es as an exception of the prohibition of the use of force, lawful? Theories on the rethinking of humanitarian intervention and the restructuring of the United Nations Security Council have been evaluated.
Hacettepe Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi, 2013
Albeit the debate on the use of force for humanitarian purposes (i.e. humanitarian military intervention) is not new, it has been flourishing since the early years of the Cold War as a result of the increasing importance placed on the international protection of human rights. After gaining a prominent place in the international law and politics literatures, with cases of action and inaction/indifference in the 1990s, the question of (and the need for) undertaking intervention to stop mass atrocities took a new turn with the introduction of the “responsibility to protect” (RtoP) understanding. Now also enlisted as a measure within the RtoP framework but only as a last resort and to be undertaken with Security Council authorisation, humanitarian (military) intervention continues to be adopted individually or collectively by states in their international conduct. In this vein, its unilateral or unauthorised practices continue to create controversy in the political and academic platforms. Primarily with the military interventions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, then most recently with the intervention in Libya, the debates on the legitimacy, legality and lawfulness of the controversial doctrine of humanitarian intervention once again gained momentum. In the light of these developments, this article analyses the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in relation to international law with a specific focus on the questions of lawfulness and legality. To this end, it first traces the normative roots of the idea of undertaking military intervention on humanitarian grounds, and then, analyses the current legal framework. Finally, through an overview of cases in the post-Charter era, it tries to reveal how state practice alongside the legal understandings and debates led to the construction of the RtoP norm.
The legality of the unilateral forcible humanitarian intervention
A considerable number of commentators since the 1970s (See Lillich, McDougal and Reisman) have consistently argued that under international law States are entitled to use force to protect people in another State from gross and systematic human rights violations committed against them, or more generally to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, when the target-State is unwilling or unable to act. It entails the right of States to use force, individually or collectively, without authorization by the Security Council or the General Assembly nor target-State’s consent. Such use of force was defined as humanitarian intervention and it is deemed a third plausible legal exception to the ban of the use of armed force in international relations. This essay will seek to shed some light on the legal nature of this exception.
Redefining the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2002
Rede ning the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention 1 AMITAV ACHARYA Nothing in the UN Charter precludes a recognition that there are rights beyond borders. What the Charter does say is that 'armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest'. But what is that common interest? Who shall de ne it? Who shall defend it? Under whose authority? And with what means of intervention? Ko Annan (1999). The Responsibilit y to Protect: The Report of the Internationa l Commission on Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2 makes a major contributio n towards ful lling the internationa l community's quest for common answers to the questions posed by Ko Annan in 1999. The Commission, announced in September 2000, was partly a response to the controversies surrounding intervention s in Kosovo (not authorised by the UN Security Council and undertaken by NATO) and East Timor (authorised by the Council, but undertaken by a 'coalition of the willing'). These controversies were preceded by debates about post-Cold War intervention s in northern Iraq, Somalia, and Bosnia and the failure to intervene in Rwanda. The questions about humanitarian intervention (raised by Ko Annan and aptly summarised by Stanley Hoffmann as 'when, who, what for, and how'), (Hoffmann 1995-6) form the basis of the Report's analysis and recommendations. In addressing them, The Responsibilit y to Protect signi cantly advances the debate over humanitarian intervention and commands a place alongside other path-breaking efforts at shifting the paradigms of global security, such as the Palme Commission on Common Security, and the Bruntland Commission Report on Sustainable Development. It deserves the attention of anyone interested in promoting multilateral approaches to global peace. The Report's primary goal is to establish clear rules, procedures and criteria of humanitarian intervention , especially those related to the decision to intervene, its timing and its modalities. The Report thus aims to make humanitarian intervention not only legitimate, but also more ef cient. Last but not least, the Report seeks to address the root causes of con ict and advance the prospects for long-term peace. Although not short of concrete policy proposals, the Report's most signi cant contribution, in the view of this author, is in the conceptual domain. The Responsibility to Protect rede nes humanitarian intervention as a responsibilit y (rst, of the
Humanitarian intervention in international law
Acta Juridica Hungarica, 2013
The concept of humanitarian intervention evolved as a subset of laws that govern the use of force and now, it occupies an institutional position alongside Security Council authorization and self-defense as a legitimate and legal reason for war. Humanitarian intervention and use of force both are highly controversial yet widely accepted. This paper will evaluate whether humanitarian intervention is legitimate under international law. Humanitarian intervention contradicts the United Nations Charter but state practice developments since the Second World War have made it legitimate under a number of circumstances. Those who have argued for its legitimacy cite international norms and state practice to support the assertion that the provision for military aggression is no longer what is enshrined in the UN Charter. The debate on the legality of humanitarian intervention indicates that it could either be legitimate or illegitimate depending on how one comprehends the construction, changing and representation of international law. It is certain that there are no defi nite answers to these questions. This uncertainty is now fundamental since the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is indeterminate. Discussions over this law have not solved this puzzle. It remains legal and illegal at the same time, with recent cases not withstanding depending with the circumstances. This paper evaluates the repercussions of this fi nding for the sake of the rule of law in world politics. The paper suggests that customary prominence that scholars place on compliance with international law is misplaced. The power of international law from scholars' point of view comes from its capacity to shape the terrain for balance of political power in international relations rather than differentiating rule followers and rule breakers. International law should be perceived as a resource for state use rather than a fi xed standard of evaluating behavior.