QUESTIONING THE USE OF FORCE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: COMPARING THE CASE OF KOSOVO AND LIBYA (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.
Looking for the Impossible: The Futile Search for a Balanced Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention
Mezhdunarodnaya Analitika (International Analytics), 2021
Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.
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.
Politeia South African Journal for Political Science and Public Administration
In this article, the discourse around humanitarian intervention involving international human rights law, morality, and politics, is considered, and a right to intervention given the rigours of sovereignty is questioned. Further issues interrogated are: if intervention takes place, should it be authorised by the United Nations or should unilateral intervention by regional organisations or a single country be permissible in the face of mass killings, genocide and similar events; and what factors drive the act or omission of unilateral intervention for humanitarian purposes? The debate around these inquiries is introduced by considering the intermeshing of world politics and international law in a substantially globalising world -with particular reference to state sovereignty and the role of the United Nations. Thereafter, the evolution of humanitarian intervention and its contemporary development is examined -in the specific context of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya. This is done by examining the justifications for such intervention under international law. The legality of the intervention is explored and it is argued that the Libyan experience demonstrates that humanitarian intervention is more about morality and politics than international law. Although the lessons learned from the Libyan conflict are perhaps still unclear, it is concluded that a reformed UN Security Council may well be the global authority with auspices above powerful nation-state interests, and with the wherewithal to give meaning to international law over morality and politics in humanitarian interventions.
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.
Revisiting international law on the use of force in light of the 2011 military interventions in Libya and Ivory Coast: Have human rights violations become an exception to the prohibition on the use of force?" INTRODUCTION : The principle of State's sovereignty and its corollary of non intervention are considered as the founding principles 1 of the United Nations Charter [hereinafter UN Charter] as they protect matters that used to be exclusively of domestic jurisdiction. This has been a constant truth for years: Taught by scholars and endorsed by the doctrine, it was for example and for quite a long time considered that "The relations between a State and its own nationals are normally a matter of domestic jurisdiction" 2. Over the years, a lot of changes have occurred, essentially due to the exceptional development of international human rights law. Nowadays, it appears almost uncontroversial to assert that the question of human rights cannot be considered as a matter exclusively within a State's domestic jurisdiction and untouched by international law 3. Indeed, human rights have become the common and universal language of humanity, a sort of ethical reference that is used to qualify any action, government or treaty as "wrong" or "right"; they thus plainly influence the orientation of the everchanging public international law in its quest for a balance between maintaining peace and promoting justice. One of the recent challenges of international law, as regards the numerous crisis that have existed for the past twenty years is the expansion of the legal regime authorizing the use of force 4. The genocide in Rwanda, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or the long lasting civil war in Somalia are among the situations that have led some to defend humanitarian interventions 5 in case of gross human rights violations. The question of humanitarian intervention has for long been on the agenda