The Thorny Issues Surrounding International Intervention

Nation-states have always involved themselves in the affairs of others. However, especially the topic of humanitarian intervention, has remained a persuasive foreign international dilemma in recent decades as it highlights the differences between the principle of sovereignty and evolving international norms related to human security making it among the most controversial issues facing governments. In International Relations (IR), humanitarian intervention has particularly caused heated debates over its legality, when it should occur, and whether it is effective. This paper will argue that the international community should involve itself in the internal affairs of states wracked by civil war and internal strife, and that state sovereignty cannot be absolute. It will first briefly elaborate on the notion of humanitarian intervention, what involves, and address misconceptions and critics related to the term and practice of humanitarian intervention. It will then argue that the international community ought to intervene in other states in order to save lives and halt human suffering. Secondly, the international community should be able to intervene because this would deter potential aggressors and atrocities, as well as prevent turmoil from spreading to neighbouring countries. Thirdly, it will argue that, especially in a world where non-state actors poses a major threat, that absolute respect for sovereignty would lead to a less secure global order and environment.

In international law, it is the primary duty of a state to safeguard the lives of its citizens from mass atrocity and crimes. Consequently, where a state is unwilling or unable to carry out its primary responsibility, the international community with the authorization of the UN Security Council has a secondary duty to collectively intervene in the affairs of such state in order to protect its citizens. In other circumstances, states take it upon themselves to unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of a challenged state, although this act of unilateral intervention is an act prohibited under Article 2.7 of the UN Charter and considered to be a violation of international law. This research therefore examines the practice of humanitarian intervention under international law and its conflict with basic principles of international law. It further appraises the guiding framework for humanitarian intervention under international law today, its application and its impact on the sovereignty of states. It concludes that the current framework for intervention has failed to deal with the multifarious issues arising out of a proposed or actual humanitarian intervention in light of current international trends.

Attitudes toward state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention have changed significantly in the late 20th century, making it increasingly less culpable for states to intervene and thus increasingly limiting target state’s right of sovereignty and non-intervention. It looks like we have arrived in a new era of universal morality, in which the global protection of human rights and universal values receives priority over protection of the principles of sovereignty and equality of states. This paper illustrates the change in the overall pattern of attitudes in the international community toward the idea of state sovereignty and the act of international intervention. It does so according to four specific cases: Cambodia, Iraq, Rwanda and Kosovo.

Trends and Transformation in World Politics, 2022

Humanitarian Intervention (HI) is one of the last decade’s outstanding concepts, and it has raised controversies, both when it happens and when it does not. With the end of the Cold War, politicians and academics have started to become interested in matters outside of the two superpowers’ competition. The international community has started to deal with issues that have previously been of low importance. The concept of HI is also among the issues that have started to be discussed more after the Cold War. It has emerged from this question: “Do human rights violations in a state concern other states?” And it refers to military intervention by a third country, group of countries, or international organization to the internal affairs of a country with human rights violations with or without consent of that country. As countries intervened for humanitarian purposes, the discussions on HI have become fiercer and sharper. As a result of these discussions, several opposing views have emerged, such as intervention versus sovereignty, intervention versus nonintervention, or human rights versus international order. Although it has different names, this debate is essentially between those who think serious human rights violations should require intervention and those who think they should not interfere with domestic affairs.

International journal of political science and public administration, 2023

This paper delves into the complex tension between national self-rule and international involvement, in the context of global politics, examining the inherent challenges of upholding both principles when confronted with human rights abuses and the pursuit of global peace. The introduction presents the fundamental dilemma: self-governance versus moral obligations. The problem statement calls for a nuanced approach to address the intricate complexities of sovereignty and intervention, acknowledging the potential misuse by oppressive regimes and the ongoing challenges of determining when and how intervention is warranted. The article advocates for a more responsible and effective approach to global conflicts and human rights violations, balancing national sovereignty with judicious intervention when required. The methodology employs both literature review and case analysis to construct a framework for objectively assessing when international intervention is justified in instances of human rights abuses. The conclusion stresses the criticality of objective intervention criteria, transcending cultural, political, and economic biases, and advocates for a globally accepted approach that celebrates diversity while promoting global stability.

Discussion of the legality of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention under both customary and textual International Law. Provides a legal, moral, and political framework of this the principle of Humanitarian Intervention, while ultimately providing a prescriptive remedy for authorization of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention as a response to internal humanitarian crises.

1990

Although internal conflicts are recurrent phenomena in the history of mankind, their regulation by international law has been very slow. The usual explanation of this state of affairs is that such events touch directly on the survival of established Governments or even the existence of the State itself. States view with suspicion, fear and even hostility any attempt at the international level to regulate their conduct vis-`a-vis their local enemies. They use the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention as a shield against any effective regulation of such tragic events by humanitarian law. However, no serious attempt has been made by international lawyers to study the issue of the influence of those two principles on the development of humanitarian law applicable in internal conflicts. This study tries to establish with exactitude how and where sovereignty and non-intervention have been resorted to, in order to hinder such regulation, and how other considerations (especially th...

Masters dissertation , 2018

The principles of state sovereignty and non-interference rest at the very heart of International law and springs from the 1648 Westphalian treaty. Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs to the exclusion of all external powers. This is founded on the principle of non-interference in another country‟s domestic affairs and that each state irrespective of its size is equal in International law. This study shall rely principally on the doctrinal research methodology by systematic and thematic analysis of existing data on sovereignty and non-interference. The interpretation of sovereignty as narrowly as the non-intervention principle has placed sovereignty against the possibility of intervening for the protection of Human rights. The Rwanda genocide, mass atrocity crimes and crimes against humanity that characterized the state of Rwanda and Srebrenica amongst others raised the need for action by the International community to protect not only states, but also people. This thesis attempts therefore, to find a bridge between these two seemingly opposing interests -protecting the state for a strong international order and protecting the people to save lives. Responsibility to protect is based on the notion of a primary responsibility with each and every state to protect its population, and a secondary responsibility with the international community to assist a state, which is unwilling or unable to protect its people. This thesis concludes that responsibility to protect is part of sovereignty, as a duty of a state, corresponding to the right of non-intervention. If the reign fails to protect its people, or is itself abusing its people, the right of non-intervention becomes void.