Law, Force, and Human Rights: The Search for a Sufficiently Principled Legal Basis for Humanitarian Intervention (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Humanitarian Intervention and International Law
Journalism and Mass Communication, 2018
During the last decade of the 20th century, there were nine humanitarian interventions: in Northern Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Albania, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone. Of the cases cited, the consent of the home government was obtained in five cases and two others had explicit Security Council authorization. However, two cases were carried out without consent of the government or authorization by the UN Security Council: Northern Iraq and Kosovo. NATO bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999 received a particular attention and condemnation. Without UN Security Council’s resolution for that “air campaign”, there was justification that the action was about prevention of humanitarian catastrophe. This paper will attempt at identifying legal position of humanitarian intervention in international law; whether or not, and in what circumstances, it is safe to claim that there exists the right to humanitarian intervention. At the beginning of the 21st century, there has been extensive consideration of the “responsibility to protect” as a composite concept comprising the responsibilities to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, to react immediately when they do occur and to rebuild afterwards. Such an approach may be seen as an effort to redefine the principle of humanitarian intervention in a way that seeks to minimize the motives of the intervening powers. The paper also deals with the relation and differences between humanitarian intervention and “responsibility to protect” concept.
Humanitarian Intervention: Is There a Need for a Legal Reappraisal
European Journal of International Law, 2001
The breakdown of Yugoslavia and the ensuing war has called into question many formerly uncontested principles of international law. Perhaps the most far-reaching challenge to the traditional international law doctrine was brought about by the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Many authors cite this event as a proof that a new right to humanitarian intervention is evolving or has already come into being. The aim of this article is to show that conventional positions have been abandoned far too easily in this context. Not only is this change of position unwarranted on legal grounds but it is also counterproductive on the factual level. Despite all its shortcomings the prohibition of the use of force may constitute in the end a better protection for the weak than its abandonment prompted by an over-enthusiastic belief in the virtues of the intervenor.
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.