International Relations

Session 19: Humanitarian

Intervention
• Humanitarian intervention refers to armed
intervention in one sovereign state by another
state with the objective of ending or reducing the
suffering of a population within the first state.
• That suffering may be the result of civil war,
humanitarian crisis, or crimes committed by the
occupied nation (such as genocide).
• The goal of humanitarian intervention is neither
annexation nor interference with territorial
integrity, but minimization of the suffering of
civilians in that state.
 What is Humanitarian Intervention?
• No formal legal definition exists
• Outside powers have the right and also a moral duty
to intervene to protect people, even if what is taking
place is a conflict within the state.
• Traditionally, intervention itself, is political in
character and has been defined as a forcible breach
of sovereignty that interferes in a state’s internal
affairs.
• Advocated by Solidarists* and counter-restrictionists
*International society is capable of agreeing on universal standards
of justice and morality.
• It’s logical consequence, the rule of non-
intervention, is enshrined in customary
international law and codified in Article 2(4) of
the UN Charter, prohibiting the use of force in
matters that are ‘essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state.’
 Opponents of intervention
• Restrictionists: the majority of international
lawyers who argue that to forcibly intervene on
humanitarian grounds is illegal due to the
prohibition of the use of force in Article 2 (4) of
the UN Charter.
• The only legitimate exception, they claim, is the
right to self-defense, as articulated in Article 51
of the Charter.
 Objections to humanitarian
intervention
These problems are pointed out by realists and
pluralists*:
1.States do not intervene for primarily
humanitarian purposes and only pursue their
interests.

*states are conscious of common goals and interests but these

are limited to rules of sovereignty and non-intervention
2. States do not have the right to risk the lives of
their armed forces on humanitarian missions
(pragmatism). State leaders have no right to
sacrifice their people on behalf of a the
suffering humanity.
If there is a problem in a country, it is the
responsibility of that state, not of external
states.
3. The problem of abuse of international rules:
Methods of legitimizing humanitarian efforts
are not neutral or impartial. Already UN
articles are twisted to justify intervention. This
will only increase and lead to more
intervention that may not have humanitarian
motivations.
4. Selectivity of response: States intervene only
where there are geo-political interest involved.
Humanitarian response is not uniform.
5. What moral principle should legitimize
intervention? How is a consensus reached?
Morals and values are determined by culture
and states may impose their own definitions of
morals to facilitate intervention.
 Counter-restrictionist argument
• There is in fact a legal right of unilateral and
collective humanitarian intervention in the
society of states, as well a moral duty to help
fellow men by virtue of their humanity.
• They argue this based on two claims:
(1) The UN Charter also commits states to
protecting fundamental human rights.
(2)There is a right of humanitarian
intervention in customary international law.
1. Protection of human rights:
– The UN has provisions for the protection of civilian rights in its
charter.
– If the UN fails in its responsibility to protect, states can and
should unilaterally take action to stop mass killings or
genocide.
– If the UN does not provide a legal basis for humanitarian
intervention, it contradicts its original purpose.
– If the right to self defence is legal, so should be the right to
intervene humanitarian grounds unilaterally.
2. Customary international law is grounds for
humanitarian intervention
– Over a period of time, if states start behaving a
specific way, it becomes part or customary law,
that can be legally imposed.
3. Moral requirements (how many people have t
die before something is done to stop it?)
– Morals may not be legally recognized, but they
can still be the basis of policy.