REDEFINING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS IN THE 21 st CENTURY

International security is a particularly important and sensitive area of cooperation between states. It has transformed into a new dimension since the second half of the twentieth century, especially when it comes to a development of international protection of human rights. The issue of humanitarian intervention is in particular questionable and actual in this area. It is at the forefront within the development of international relations focusing on internationalization of human rights and their protection in relation to States which severely violate them. There is no doubt that this issue is closely linked to the fundamental principles established in the UN Charter. The UN Charter fixed the situation after World War II, but there has been a change in the nature of the conflicts since then and state sovereignty and human rights protection are in the front. The practice of states, international organizations and the literature therefore suggest that there are many conflicting views on the legitimacy of an armed humanitarian intervention. The author describes some of them, including relevant legal arguments and positions of major players of the international community.

Journalism and Mass Communication, 2018

During the last decade of the 20th century, there were nine humanitarian interventions: in Northern Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Albania, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone. Of the cases cited, the consent of the home government was obtained in five cases and two others had explicit Security Council authorization. However, two cases were carried out without consent of the government or authorization by the UN Security Council: Northern Iraq and Kosovo. NATO bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999 received a particular attention and condemnation. Without UN Security Council’s resolution for that “air campaign”, there was justification that the action was about prevention of humanitarian catastrophe. This paper will attempt at identifying legal position of humanitarian intervention in international law; whether or not, and in what circumstances, it is safe to claim that there exists the right to humanitarian intervention. At the beginning of the 21st century, there has been extensive consideration of the “responsibility to protect” as a composite concept comprising the responsibilities to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, to react immediately when they do occur and to rebuild afterwards. Such an approach may be seen as an effort to redefine the principle of humanitarian intervention in a way that seeks to minimize the motives of the intervening powers. The paper also deals with the relation and differences between humanitarian intervention and “responsibility to protect” concept.

HUMANUS DISCOURSE, 2022

Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention are one of the most hotly disputed issues in global politics. While some see them as evidence that world affairs are being guided by new and more enlightened cosmopolitan sensibilities, others view them as deeply misguided and morally confused. Difficult questions have nevertheless been raised about Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention. What are human rights, and on what basis can they be claimed? How, and how effectively, have international human rights been protected? On what grounds has the doctrine of human rights been criticized? What explains the growth of humanitarian intervention, and its subsequent decline? Under what circumstances is it right to intervene in the affairs of another state? Why has humanitarian intervention been criticized? This paper attempts to provide explicit and painstaking answers to these mind-boggling questions. It emphasizes that non- intervention is commonly understood as the norm in international society, but should military intervention be permissible when governments massively violate the human rights of their citizens, are unable to prevent such violations, or if states have collapsed into civil war and anarchy? This is the guiding question addressed in this paper. International law forbids the use of force except for purposes of self-defence and collective enforcement authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The challenge posed by humanitarian intervention is whether it also should be exempted from the general ban on the use of force. This paper examines arguments for and against forcible humanitarian intervention. The theoretical analysis is explored in relation to humanitarian intervention during the 1990s and the war on terror. The final section focuses on the responsibility to protect, an important attempt to address this challenge.

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.

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

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2000

Humanitarian intervention, a long-standing issue in international legal writing and in state practice, has become a major focus of international legal thinking and military action. Since the early 1990s, there have been new and unexpected elements in the practice of intervention, in its authorization, and in debates about it. Action by outside military forces in several territories — northern Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo — has provoked questions about whether there is a right of humanitarian intervention. In addition, the debate on the subject has been spurred by the strong sense that there were crises (most notably, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994) in which the international community should have intervened promptly but failed to do so.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: A UNIVERSAL STANDARD? , 2018

This study explores the concept of humanitarian intervention and investigates whether human intervention can connect to a universal standard. The fundamental cause of humanitarian intervention is the response of human rights violations by a state, and thus the intervention to the state. Human rights thoughts are the taboo in the modern world and state sovereignty is one of the signi cant international rights. Nevertheless, the humanitarian intervention is an exception of the state sovereignty, but when? In this context, it is explained what human intervention is, the change in history and time. The political memory of the period and the positions of the states have led to humanitarian intervention decisions. The question of what the limits are is one of the problems of this study and has been assessed and compare with the sovereignty of states and the obligation of protection in international law. It has been argued whether international law will be a social contract. Also, it mentioned in the literature on ethics of humanitarian intervention for understanding the legal and theoretical bases of humanitarian intervention decisions. Is humanitarian intervention that identi es as an exception of the prohibition of the use of force, lawful? Theories on the rethinking of humanitarian intervention and the restructuring of the United Nations Security Council have been evaluated.

Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International relations

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.

The on-going Syrian civil war calls for a re-evaluation of using force to protect human rights. This article does not rake over the much-debated issue of whether a right of humanitarian intervention exists as lex lata. Instead, it addresses the little reviewed normative issue of whether the right should exist in international law to support and reflect a pluralistic understanding of sovereignty. Despite advancements in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, this wider fabric of international law preserves Westphalian sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. It denies any right of humanitarian intervention. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/should-international-law-recognize-a-right-of-humanitarian-intervention/BB33A4BD19815812A9E48FF5F271357E