Paradox of humanitarian intervention: A critical analysis of theory and practice (original) (raw)

Humanitarian interventions: a critical approach

This paper aims to confront the manifold aspects of "humanitarian" intervention along with the conceptualization of national sovereignty. It is argued that, among the many forms of humanitarian interventions (such as sanctions, material assistance, aid, etc.), military intervention should always be the last resort when it comes to guaranteeing both the protection of human rights and regional stability. The discussion about intervention in a sovereign state has long been an inherently part of international studies. On one hand we have the Westphalian concept of sovereignty (therefore, the state-centrism perspective and the absolute rejection of external intervention without consent), and on the other hand, the consolidation of the concept of human rights, advocating that interventions are necessary where human abuses are practised. Merging them in order to verify the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention in a contemporary world has been the real challenge to many scholars in the field. It is argued that humanitarian intervention has very often been used as a fundamental key to serve transnational elites (within developed countries) to impose their universal values. In spite of this, it is imperative to bear in mind the multifarious aspects of conflictuality and humanitarian interventions in the light of the past experiences and future challenges.

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

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.

REDEFINING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS IN THE 21 st CENTURY

Chotanagpur Law Journal , 2017

The transformation in the nature of war and of accompanying human rights violations have influenced the manner in which we think about sovereignty, non-intervention and the protection of human rights. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and the Security Council's response to it has shown that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is heavily influenced by factors other than the substantive act of violence. Accordingly, this paper discusses the legal element, but also throws light on the factors that influence the use, or abstention from the use, of armed humanitarian intervention. Further, in light of recent crisis, this paper evaluates the argument of a 'new humanitarianism' which may prove to be useful in a better understanding of the dynamics of armed conflicts and mass atrocities.

Humanitarian intervention in the post-cold war era : a postcolonial critique on new interventionism

2014

The collapse of the Soviet Union saw a shift in the way the international community perceived humanitarian interventions and the principles of sovereignty. With the world no longer divided along ideological lines, the United Nations found itself drawn into conflicts of a different nature, which resulted in the development of a new 'norm' of intervention, which saw human rights being promoted to the detriment of state sovereignty. This paper aims to highlight the emergence of what is described as 'new interventionism' that has developed in the post Cold War era. An analysis of humanitarian intervention through a postcolonial perspective aims to uncover the motives behind certain interventions, to determine whether they are based solely on humanitarian grounds, or if they are influenced by the interests of the state or international actor involved.

Humanitarian Intervention and Just War

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention

This paper points out the contradictions between the concept of humanitarian intervention and the concept of the nation-state as the main foundation of the world order, which eventually makes the humanitarian intervention unable to fulfill its main function clarified in its previous definition. The main three debates discussed in this paper are the contradiction between preserving state sovereignty and preserving human security, between perusing state interests and protecting human rights and between state responsibility for its own citizens and the International Community’s responsibility of the human beings all over the world. Because the conflict in Darfur is an ongoing one and clearly manifests these debates, the case will be referred to frequently in this paper.

Humanitarian Intervention: A Novel Constructivist Analysis of Norms and Behaviour

2013

Over the last 25 years the international system, in which the primacy of sovereignty was central to notions of accepted state behaviour, has witnessed the development and increasing legitimacy of humanitarian intervention as a new norm. This norm acknowledges legitimate forceful intervention over the sovereign affairs of a state to alleviate severe humanitarian distress. This paper examines the development of this norm, seeking to understand why it has occurred and the motivations of those states engaging in interventionist behaviour. It proposes that the traditional Realist framework provided by Neorealism and Neoliberalism offers an incomplete analysis of the dynamic forces at work. Accounting primarily for variations in the calculation of material gain, Realism consequently diminishes motivational factors that appear to be evident in state behaviour. This paper introduces a novel Constructivist approach to the analysis of humanitarian intervention, focusing on the role of ideatio...

The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect

Journal of International Social Research, 2017

This article contends that, the concept of Humanitarian Intervention that gained wide recognition and acceptance in post-cold war era has lost its value and efficacy due to its inability to meet up with its stated objective in the wake of the recent humanitarian crisis in North African and the Middle East. This paper predominantly reflects on the liberal school of thought that informs the modern principle of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect. The analysis answers the question, "why has the concept of Humanitarian Intervention lost its value amidst recent human atrocities" The analysis cuts across four different cases of humanitarian intervention from 1990s up to date. The cases analyzed suggest that the concept has lost its value and efficacy mainly because military humanitarian intervention has been transformed into a liberal technique of global governance used by powerful states (mostly Permanent Security member states) to pursue their geopolitical and strategic national interest. The article ends by underpinning the need to device new modalities within the UN operational framework that would restrain the political will of P5 member states in matters of humanitarian concerns.