Comprehensive Notes on Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention is a means to prevent or stop gross violations of human rights within a state. This intervention is applicable when the state is either incapable or unwilling to protect its own people, or is actively persecuting them.

Legal Position on Humanitarian Intervention

Sovereignty is typically viewed as an absolute principle, with the UN General Assembly's 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations stating that no state or group of states has the right to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of another. This emphasizes that armed intervention and all forms of interference threaten the very essence of the state’s political, economic, and cultural integrity, thereby constituting violations of international law.

Use of force against sovereign states

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly forbids the threat or use of force by states in their interactions with one another. Additionally, Article 2(7) prohibits the UN from interfering in the domestic affairs of its member states, maintaining the sanctity of state sovereignty.

However, there are exceptions to the ban on the use of force:

• Article 39 relates to threats to peace, allowing the use of force under specific conditions that aim to restore international peace and security.

• Article 51 recognizes the inherent right of states to use force in self-defense when faced with an armed attack.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

A broad international consensus around the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has emerged since the end of the Cold War. Many states now believe that humanitarian issues take precedence over concerns about the violation of national sovereignty. This principle was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit with the objective of preventing genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

The core premise of R2P is that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocities and human rights violations, addressing the shortcomings of a rigid interpretation of sovereignty.

What Constitutes 'Humanitarian Abuse'?

Humanitarian abuses encompass actions such as genocide, defined as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Other forms of abuse may include war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and systematic rape or torture.

Performing Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention is generally accepted; however, variations in opinion exist regarding how and when such interventions should occur. Key considerations for successful interventions include:

• Timing: The suitability of the moment for intervention is critical. Intervention can occur at different stages in a conflict:

  • Pre-conflict: Intervening at this stage is often challenging, as some argue that the international community should only intervene once a significant loss of life occurs.

  • During-conflict: Intervening in the early stages of conflict is seen as most effective; waiting too long might lead to an escalation that makes it difficult to contain the situation.

  • Post-conflict: While the risk during this phase may be lower, the potential for impact might also diminish, as the urgency often related to immediate humanitarian crises lessens.

• Level of force: The debate on the appropriate level of force is a contentious issue that influences intervention outcomes:

  • Non-Military Force: Engaging in economic sanctions against a government can severely impact the civilian population and potentially turn public opinion against the regime.

  • Military Force: Considerations include identification of interveners – whether NATO will act unilaterally or a coalition of states will be formed, the type of forces deployed, and strategies for intervention such as aerial raiding versus ground troop deployment.

Does Humanitarian Intervention Work?

Determining whether intervention is successful is complex:

• A rising death toll does not necessarily indicate failure; it may reflect that killings would have been more severe without intervention.

• The preservation of life raises questions about whether it is the only standard for measuring success and prompts the need to evaluate the quality of life after the intervention.

Case for Intervention

Several arguments support humanitarian intervention:

• To prevent future catastrophes similar to those seen in Rwanda or Srebrenica.

• The establishment of friendly successor states, such as Bangladesh and Kosovo, is seen as a potential positive outcome.

• The argument that individual rights and human rights assume importance only if there is a commitment from the international community to protect them. The failure to intervene in the face of gross human rights abuses sets a perilous precedent.

Case Against Intervention

Opponents of intervention present several concerns:

• Possible mobilization of militant forces supported by the intervention, exacerbating violence.

• Intervention may compel opposing forces to increase their violent actions as a desperate measure.

• A clear outcome of the conflict is often necessary before intervention amidst the chaos.

• Numerous studies suggest that foreign intervention may reduce the likelihood of outright victory in wars, leaving behind an unstable peace, which poses risks of reigniting conflict (Luttwak, 1999).

• The assumption that individuals universally possess fundamental human rights is often contested in various parts of the world, posing questions about the legitimacy of foreign intervention.

• Parekh (1997: 54-5) argues that liberal rights cannot adequately serve as a foundation for humanitarian intervention, particularly in regions that reject liberal ideologies.

Potential Problems with Intervention

Several problematic consequences may arise from humanitarian interventions:

• Questions about who will lead as successors and how they will govern following intervention are paramount.

• There is a risk of reverse oppression, where newly empowered groups may suppress other factions.

• The potential destabilization of the broader region following intervention raises concerns.

• Interventions can undermine the foundational principle of sovereignty, leading to further complications in international relations.

• Abuse of the R2P doctrine may occur, notably by states pursuing ulterior motives under the guise of humanitarian concerns.

• Lack of consistency in the application of R2P principles can lead to accusations of hypocrisy.

• The challenge of larger and stronger nations becoming immune to humanitarian intervention invites skepticism about the application of these principles, especially if violations of human rights occur in such states.

Example 1: Kosovo (1999)

In Kosovo, Serbia was considered the aggressor, provoking anti-Serb atrocities, which, at the time, were not widely reported. NATO forces employed a method of airstrikes against Serbian targets, ultimately contributing to a complex aftermath that prompted discussions on the rise of insular populism in Serbia following Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asserted that state sovereignty is being redefined by global forces, highlighting the transition from viewing the state as a supreme authority to seeing it as a servant of the people (Annan, 1999: 2).

Example 2: Libya (2011)

In Libya, Colonel Qaddafi confronted significant domestic opposition, labelling insurgents as terrorists. The post-conflict landscape proved chaotic with historical militancy persistently affecting the nation's social fabric for years following intervention. The UN Security Council invoked R2P with specific resolutions in 2011 regarding Libya (Resolutions 1970 and 1973).

• Resolution 1970 imposed an arms embargo, whereas Resolution 1973 instated a no-fly zone and implicitly authorized the use of force, albeit controversially, to protect civilians.

Voting details reflected a complex international stance, with 10 members supporting the resolution while five abstained. This marked a historic moment as it was the first instance that the Security Council authorized force for humanitarian purposes, albeit exceptions arise due to the rarity of such authorization (NATO did not have Security Council backing for its intervention in Kosovo in 1999). Since the Libya intervention, references to R2P have appeared in various resolutions concerning crises in regions like Central African Republic, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen.

Other Options

Humanitarian intervention does not always necessitate military force; it can take various forms, including:

• Humanitarian aid provided through reputable organizations like the UN, Red Cross, and various NGOs.

• Foreign direct investment raised for humanitarian purposes.

• Assisting in rebuilding infrastructure and facilitating sustainable development in affected regions.