|
|
|
|||
|
|
The civil wars which are raging in
many parts of the globe are mainly the result of intra-state conflict and/or
ethnic violence and are often characterised by the collapse of state
institutions and the breakdown of law and order. In these wars, civilians have
become the main targets and resulted in enormous human suffering and often
devastating humanitarian crises.
The international community has, on occasion, both unilaterally by States and within the United Nations system, responded to some of these crises justifying its intervention on a variety of reasons, such as to prevent or stop gross and widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, or the potentially destabilising effect of transborder refugee flows. Such action has included the provision of humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and the use of force to provide such assistance.
However, there has been a longstanding debate surrounding the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and in particular the right of states to intervene militarily in another state, without Security Council authorisation, in order to prevent gross violations of fundamental human rights and international humanitarian law. What underlies the debate is a perceived tension between the values of ensuring respect for fundamental human rights and the primacy of the norms of sovereignty and non-intervention which are considered essential factors in the maintenance of peace and international security. These values are set out in the United Nations Charter as fundamental purposes of the United Nations.
It has been put forward by many Western states and academics that the development of international human rights norms and international humanitarian law has modified the traditional concept of sovereignty. Thus, it has been suggested that human rights can no longer be considered a purely domestic concern and the concept of sovereignty cannot be used by governments to shield themselves from responsibility for gross violations of these rights, or from shirking their obligations with respect to the protection and treatment of civilians in situations of intra-state conflict.
When if at all may humanitarian intervention be justified?
Is the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization be justified for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights? Is there an emerging legal right or norm that allows humanitarian enforcement action outside of the Charter regime? What are the possible criteria for humanitarian intervention which could inform governmental decision-making in a situation where the Security Council is unable to take action?
Humanitarian intervention issues