Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention is the use or threat of military force by a state (or states) across borders with the intent of ending severe and widespread human rights violations in a state which has not given permission for the use of force.[1] Humanitarian interventions are aimed at ending human rights violations of individuals other than the citizens of the intervening state.[1] Humanitarian interventions are only intended to prevent human rights violations in extreme circumstances.[1] Attempts to establish institutions and political systems to achieve positive outcomes in the medium- to long-run, such as peacekeeping, peace-building and development aid, do not fall under this definition of a humanitarian intervention.[1]

There is not one standard or legal definition of humanitarian intervention; the field of analysis (such as law, ethics or politics) often influences the definition that is chosen. Differences in definition include variations in whether humanitarian intervention is limited to instances where there is an absence of consent from the host state; whether humanitarian intervention is limited to punishment actions; and whether humanitarian intervention is limited to cases where there has been explicit UN Security Council authorization for action.[2] Nonetheless, there is a general consensus on some of its essential characteristics:[3]

  1. Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature
  2. It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state.
  3. The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states' strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

The customary international law concept of humanitarian intervention dates back to Hugo Grotius and the European politics in the 17th century.[4][5] However, that customary law has been superseded by the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international relations, subject to two exhaustive exceptions: UN Security Council action taken under Chapter VII, and self-defence against an armed attack.[6][7] The type and frequency of humanitarian interventions have changed drastically since the 19th century, with a massive increase in humanitarian interventions since the end of the Cold War.[8] Historically, humanitarian interventions were limited to rescuing one's own citizens in other states or to rescue ethnically or religiously similar groups (e.g. Christian countries intervening on behalf of Christians in non-Christian countries).[8] Over the course of the 20th century (in particular after the end of the Cold War), subjects perceived worthy of humanitarian intervention expanded beyond religiously and ethnically similar groups to encompass all peoples.[8]

The subject of humanitarian intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy issue, especially since NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999, as it highlights the tension between the principle of state sovereignty – a defining pillar of the UN system and international law – and evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force.[9] Moreover, it has sparked normative and empirical debates over its legality, the ethics of using military force to respond to human rights violations, when it should occur, who should intervene,[10] and whether it is effective. To its proponents, it marks imperative action in the face of human rights abuses, over the rights of state sovereignty, while to its detractors it is often viewed as a pretext for military intervention often devoid of legal sanction (as indeed a new customary law norm would require sufficient state practice[11]) selectively deployed and achieving only ambiguous ends. Its frequent use following the end of the Cold War suggested to many that a new norm of military humanitarian intervention was emerging in international politics, although some[who?] now argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the US "war on terror" have brought the era of humanitarian intervention to an end.[12]

  1. ^ a b c d Seybolt, Taylor B. (2007). Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure (PDF). Oxford University Press. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5.
  2. ^ Jennifer M. Welsh. Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations. Ed. Jennifer M. Welsh. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
  3. ^ Alton Frye. 'Humanitarian Intervention: Crafting a Workable Doctrine.' New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2000.
  4. ^ Eaton, Jonah (2011). An Emerging Norm - Determining the Meaningand Legal Status of the Responsibility to Protect. (Michigan Journal of International Law vol. 32, iss. 4 (2010-2011), p. 765-804). “The idea of sovereignty as an instrument for the protection of the life and safety of subjects is at least as old as Hugo Grotius, who made "the first authoritative statement of the principle of humanitarian intervention - the principle that exclusiveness of domestic jurisdiction stops when outrage upon humanity begins."”
  5. ^ Koh, Harold Hongju (October 2, 2013). "Syria and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention (Part II: International Law and the Way Forward)". Just Security (justsecurity.org). Retrieved October 22, 2016.
  6. ^ Charter of the United Nations. July 23, 2015. doi:10.18356/7642fc4d-en. S2CID 158332529.
  7. ^ Simma, Bruno; Khan, Daniel-Erasmus; Nolte, Georg; Paulus, Andreas; Wessendorf, Nikolai, eds. (2012). The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-178825-3. OCLC 956632951.
  8. ^ a b c Finnemore, Martha (2003). The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3845-5. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt24hg32.
  9. ^ Shashi Tharoor and Sam Daws. "Humanitarian Intervention: Getting Past the Reefs." World Policy Journal 2001.
  10. ^ James Pattison, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  11. ^ The Non-Aligned Movement has expressed its unequivocal rejection of the principle of humanitarian intervention, and it represents over two-thirds of the world's states. Accordingly, the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2(4) of the UN Charter stands.
  12. ^ A. Cottey. "Beyond Humanitarian Intervention: The New Politics of Peacekeeping and Intervention." Contemporary Politics 2008: pp. 429–446.