Humanitarian Intervention

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), 2014

The Legality and Legitimacy of Using Armed Force for the Protection of Strangers-From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect The ceaseless State-made humanitarian atrocities in the past decades toll the bell for the whole international community to take a responsibility. The traditional doctrine of humanitarian intervention encourages States or States groups to use armed force in a foreign territory for the protection of civilians of the targeted State. This doctrine has lived through a long history of international relations, from an age when States-resorting-to-war was legal to the time when the use of force is generally prohibited by international law. The legality of humanitarian intervention is quite controversial under the modern international law since 1945. On the one hand, the UN Charter lays down strict rules of lawful use of force; on the other hand, State practice of humanitarian intervention in the new era always lead to intense debate about whether humanitarian considerations can serve as a justification for military intervention in a sovereign State. However, hardly there is a universal consensus among States and scholars on this question. After the Cold War, a new form of humanitarian intervention, authorized by the UN Security Council, comes into the cause of international society, which is generally recognized as a lawful use of force. In the beginning of the new millennium, the emerging concept of Responsibility to Protect, which inherits the core spirit of humanitarian intervention-using armed force for the protection of strangers, has been quickly recognized by most States. This paper is going to assess the legality of humanitarian intervention by examine both the treaty laws and customary international law. Also, it attempts to address the legitimacy issue of using armed force for the protection of strangers without the Security Council authorization, by going through the changing position of the major States in this regard, especially those which always against. Keywords sovereignty, human rights, use of force, Article 2(4), customary international law, State practice, opinio juris, R2P, humanitarian intervention xiv 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Starting from March 2011, the Syrian conflict, ignited by the government's bloody repression of largely non-violent protests, has entered its fifth year. 1 The Syrian government forces and pro-government militia, as well as armed rebel groups, have committed massive crimes against humanity and war crimes since the conflict broke up. Till April 2014, approximately 200,000 civilians have been documented killed and the death toll is still accumulating day by day. 2 In its fifth year, the Syrian crisis remains unsolved: The fighting is continuing between the warring parties; the civilian population is still suffering; and the perpetrators are shielded from accountability. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) described the deteriorating Syrian situation as-a conflagration of an unparalleled scale and magnitude‖. 3 Responding to the severe security situation in Syria, in April 2012, the United Nations dispatched a United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) 4 to monitor a cessation of armed violence, and to monitor and support the full implementation of the Envoy's sixpoint proposal, which was issued with the support of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. 5 However, in the mandated period of UNSMIS, the six-point proposal was set aside by all the parties and the violence in Syria escalated from civilian unrest to civil war. 6 Considering the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria during the past three years, in February 2014, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 2139, 7 demanding the Syrian authorities and other warring parties to allow humanitarian access in Syria. Due to the absence of cooperation from both the Syrian authorities and the opposite parties, this resolution has yet to make a meaningful difference in 1 This paper only covers facts before its finished date in May 2015.

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.

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.

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.

Under the Public International Law, intervening in the internal affairs of another state for whatever reason has been one of the most discussed and hotly debated areas as long as the laws of nations were developed. In recent times, the application of the principles of humanitarian intervention and later, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in crisis situations have proven highly contentious, controversial and elusive as the global community has in no time agreed on the legal justifications proffered by the intervening states or coalition of states. Evidently, the decisions by the US and the Coalition of the willing states to intervene in Iraq in 2003 have been subjected to much legal scrutiny and debates. Consequently, this paper examines the background and motivations of the US-led action against Iraq and the dichotomous legal position of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. The study adopts a descriptive/comparative approach and gathered data essentially from books, journal articles, reports from international humanitarian organizations and the Internet. Findings from the study revealed that the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led Coalition of the Willing does not represent a real case of humanitarian intervention and the principles of R2P. While the existing framework must be re-appraised to effectively address the misinterpretation and application of HI and R2P in crisis situations, effective multilateral collective security organization for its implementation is a desideratum.

1) The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war and the international response to this has exposed fundamental differences of opinion in the UK regarding the legitimacy and legality of using armed force to alleviate human suffering. It has also demonstrated significant confusion regarding the principle of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the so-called doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The UK government's legal position on humanitarian intervention is highly controversial and arguably not in line with prevailing international political and legal norms. Moreover, the parliamentary debate of 29 August 2013 on the use of chemical weapons in Syria indicated that many parliamentarians mistakenly believe that R2P allows military intervention when the United Nations is not able to actor even that R2P is a principle to be invoked when UN action is stymied. It is not. An informed debatewhich reflects broader global politicsis needed in order to build consensus on how to respond internationally to terrible abuses of human rights. Well-intentioned but illfounded national positions on humanitarian intervention will, in the longer term, weaken the R2P principle, possibly irrecoverably. Moreover, injudicious action in this area can also have negative repercussions for the UK's broader relationships and diplomatic credibility with important states (such as China, Russia, India and Brazil) which take a more conservative position on the subject of humanitarian intervention.