Edward Newman, 'The legitimacy and legality of intervention for humanitarian reasons' - Written evidence to Defence Committee Inquiry, 2013. (original) (raw)

1. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war and the international response to this has exposed fundamental differences of opinion in the UK regarding the legitimacy and legality of using armed force to alleviate human suffering. It has also demonstrated significant confusion regarding the principle of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the so-called doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The UK government's legal position on humanitarian intervention is highly controversial and arguably not in line with prevailing international political and legal norms. Moreover, the parliamentary debate of 29 August 2013 on the use of chemical weapons in Syria indicated that many parliamentarians mistakenly believe that R2P allows military intervention when the United Nations is not able to actor even that R2P is a principle to be invoked when UN action is stymied. It is not. An informed debatewhich reflects broader global politicsis needed in order to build consensus on how to respond internationally to terrible abuses of human rights. Well-intentioned but illfounded national positions on humanitarian intervention will, in the longer term, weaken the R2P principle, possibly irrecoverably. Moreover, injudicious action in this area can also have negative repercussions for the UK's broader relationships and diplomatic credibility with important states (such as China, Russia, India and Brazil) which take a more conservative position on the subject of humanitarian intervention.