![]() ![]() Specific invocation of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention by intervening states arose mostly in the latter half of the 19th Century. Early recognition of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as acceptable in international relations is widely attributed to the works of the 17th century Dutch author Hugo Grotius, also known as the Father of International Law. In pre-Charter law, there was some support for the consideration of humanitarian intervention as legal. The accepted exception to this principle, which has now become a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permissible or jus cogens as it is known, is only the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and Collective Security measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter preserves the territorial integrity and political independence of states by forbidding any use of force, or threat of use of force against either. The principle of respect for the territorial integrity of states is well founded as one of the linchpins of the international system, as is the norm prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of other states. The most important principle in international law is the inviolability of the territorial sovereignty of states. ![]() Therefore, it is no longer about whether a state should intervene or not, but rather, that a law should be brought into place for the state that intervenes to conform to, in its modus operandi. ” Chomsky precisely pointed out everything that is wrong with the way humanitarian intervention is frequently justified and carried out: There is a quick resort to military force without relying on force itself as a last resort there is always an ulterior motive that predisposes a state’s decision to intervene and, many a time, the intervention itself is unilateral and unauthorized. And when you do, you discover that virtually every use of military force is described as humanitarian intervention. More recently, the military intervention in Libya, though frowned upon by several states in the international community, can be said to be lawful since it was authorized by the Security Council in Resolution 1973, in ostensible exercise of its powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.Īs Noam Chomsky argued, “for one thing, there’s a history of humanitarian intervention. Some instances of intervention, though unauthorized, have been declared legitimate – like NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999. ![]() During the 1990s, even as the Security Council was increasingly willing to authorize humanitarian intervention, the United States and its allies took military action on at least three occasions, for express humanitarian purposes, when the specific action was not authorized by the Security Council. Many scholars identify the 1990s as a ‘decade of humanitarian intervention’, during which the UN authorized several interventions on humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian intervention is a means to prevent or stop a gross violation of human rights in a state, where such state is either incapable or unwilling to protect its own people, or is actively persecuting them. If there is to be humanitarian intervention, there should be a coherent humanitarian justification coupled with a proper procedural and substantive legal regime to underwrite it. But this “customary law” is reckless and offers absolutely no guidance to the manner in which the intervention itself should be conducted. Over the last forty years, a number of governments have justified unilateral military action with reference to the “customary law” of military humanitarian intervention in one form or another, and without exception, the international community has refused to recognize these actions as legitimate. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |