THE LEGALITY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (original) (raw)

ABSTRACT: The argument posed on International law from the realist viewpoint is that, the set of rules generally considered and accepted as binding in relations between states are only accepted by states as a result of their struggle for survival in an anarchic international community. States only adopt international legal norms that either increase their power, formalise their domination of weaker states, or those that they intend to violate or manipulate deliberately to suit their interests. For the realist, the general proposition that the law exerts little or no independent causal influence on the relation(s) between states is at its peak in the context of International Humanitarian Law and perhaps on Humanitarian Interventions also (Bradford 2004:7). This essay therefore examines the legitimacy of Humanitarian Interventions (HI), drawing insight from Andreas question of “If law is lawful, all is well. But what if law is unlawful?” (Andreas 2010: 82) According to Andreas, “societally speaking, lawfulness is expected, whereas unlawfulness is expected to turn into lawfulness” (Andreas 2010: 82). The argument against humanitarian intervention have been on its legitimacy, considering the fact that most of its actions either through economic and diplomatic sanctions or the use of force is seen as an interference on states’ sovereignty and territorial integrity; a breach of the principle of national sovereignty and non- interference (UNGA 1970). To address these issues, this essay is structured into three parts: the first section gives a brief definition of HI. The second section looks at the argument on the legality of military HI, and the conclusion, followed by references.

Sign up for access to the world's latest research.

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact