Can forcible humanitarian intervention ever be justified

 

 

Can forcible humanitarian intervention ever be justified?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Developments in the modern structure of international relations for the past twenty years, i.e. the period directly experienced a significant impact after the collapse of the USSR, raise questions over the issue of legitimacy and legality of such an act as a humanitarian intervention. There are an increasing number of ethnic and religious conflicts of internal characters that often results in a bloody civil war. Thus, there are mass violations of basic human rights. Naturally, the international community will find effective tools to address and counter the event. Peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions are a kind of means of involvement in the internal affairs of a particular state in order to prevent massive violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms (Gorbatov, 2011). Therefore the problem of the role and place of peacemaking, including, of course, and humanitarian intervention in the modern structure of international relations requires careful study and analysis.

 

By itself, humanitarian intervention has no clear legal enshrined in international law. There is the idea that, since this kind of intervention is beyond the scope of the UN Charter, it is a priori illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of another state. Opponents of this view argue that the lack of direct ban on this kind of intervention is a prerequisite for its right justification in existing international law.

 

Historical roots of the same doctrine of humanitarian intervention, goes back to the works of Hugo Grotius 17th century. He argued that war is permissible only if the oppressed people are not able to protect themselves from the persecution of their government and asked for help from foreign powers (Gorbatov, 2011). Thus, there are certain legal bases for military action. Remarkable fact is that Grotius is subject to varying forms of abuse during encroaching state intervention. It was assumed that initially the humanitarian objectives of the military operation might obscure the true political and economic motives of intervention that does not change the fact that the invasion has its legitimacy (Grohotova, 2010).

 

Subsequently, these ideas of Hugo Grotius were reflected in the works of most researchers of international law until the late 19th century. This is explained by the fact that some forms of the use of force as an instrument for resolving international conflicts have not been banned. During this period of the history of states humanitarian reasons was often used for justification of their own invasions. Mostly the same way it was explained by the need to provide protection to religious minorities. In particular it is concerned Christians in the Ottoman Empire. As a good example of the collective intervention of Great Britain, France and Russia to Greece in order to end the oppression of the Greek population (1827 - 1830), the intervention of France under the supervision of the European powers in Lebanon (1860 - 1861), the intervention of Austria, France, Italy, Prussia, and Russia in Crete against the Turkish administration, pursuing Christian (1866 - 1868); collective intervention of the European powers and Russia to the Balkans in support of persecuted Christians by the Turks in Bosnia , Herzegovina and Bulgaria (1875 - 1878) (Grohotova, 2010). Noteworthy is the fact that in none of these cases, the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire is not an obstacle for war operations.

 

Obviously, this practice differed at its degree of ambiguity. Uncertainty truth of the humanitarian purposes such invasion and lack of clearly defined rules for this kind of intervention in international law encounters doubt in terms of the legality of the tradition of humanitarian intervention. There have been attempts in the League of Nations to offer an adequate alternative to the unilateral nature of intervention in the form of regional or international operations (Lillich, 1973). It was supposed to create a specific institutional framework and tools, limiting possible abuses of undertaking humanitarian intervention.

 

However, the emergence of the UN Charter, inter alia defines the mechanism of force in international relations, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of modifying this situation. Before that, humanitarian intervention is often seen as a potentially destabilizing factor in the international arena, especially in the context of the Cold War (Gorbatov, 2011). Moreover, during the second half of the 20th century newly independent states have considered any attempts by the international community to react to the processes occurring within their borders, as a direct attack on their sovereignty.

 

Thus, in the development of the concept of humanitarian intervention in the post war period can be identified to allocate two segments: since the founding of the United Nations and to the collapse of the socialist camp and since the end of the Cold War to the present days. But the basis of this division, however, is more political rather than legal reasons. Confrontation between the two blocs strongly distorts the legal characterization of a particular event. Therefore, the states in principle does not sought to ensure the use of military force to resolve humanitarian problems, as it could cause severe and harsh reaction from the representative of the opposing bloc (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). Geopolitical changes as the beginning of the 90’s epitomised the emergence of a new stage in the development of the concept of humanitarian intervention.

 

At the same time, the term humanitarian intervention means involvement of the state or coalition of states in the internal affairs of a country, which had intended to stop the genocide, religious or ethnic cleansing, as well as the prevention of situations, the development of which was considered fraught with crimes against humanity or large-scale violations of human rights (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). This definition is quite correct when you consider how the situation looks depressingly now associated with the prevalence of modes not just infringing on a permanent basis of human rights, but also unable to provide any generally corresponding to the general principles of humanity legal order. However, the most striking examples of humanitarian intervention in the 90s can perform as the U.S. operation in Somalia and NATO in Kosovo (Schnabel and Thakur, 2000).

 

But there are a number of nuances that make it difficult with a high degree of confidence to talk about the legality of such action in international relations, as a humanitarian intervention. For example, in the event of armed aggression by one state against another trigger certain clearly defined international legal norms. But the conditions for the action by the international community to prevent or stop state violations of human rights of its own citizens in international law are not sufficiently specific.

 

The very essence of the problem related to the implementation of humanitarian intervention, largely a consequence of the contradictions that accompany the fundamental documents that form the international legal order - the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Implemented in 1945, the UN Charter assigns to the international community the right to conduct military operations, if there is the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression (Article 39). In this case, the UN Security Council has the right to give permission for an international military operation, which should lead the Military Staff Committee of the UN Security Council (Lillich, 1973).

 

It is obvious that the main obstacle here is the state sovereignty. According to the UN Charter, the national sovereignty of the Member States to be a priority in relation to the principle of protection of human rights. But in 1999 the General Secretary of the United Nations made a statement in which admitted the possibility of ignoring state sovereignty in the case of mass human rights violations (Gorbatov, 2011).

 

In this opinion, the Charter - the document is flexible enough for this kind of interpretation. For example, paragraph 4 article second of the Charter states that "All States Parties shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." The most important and obvious purpose that the United Nations have is the maintenance of international peace and security, to achieve international cooperation in the dissemination and promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion (Lillich, 1973).

 

The same Worldwide Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of man becomes the basis for achieving freedom, justice and peace in the world. Thus, traced some logical sequence to warrant humanitarian intervention. If the UN Security Council in particular, is not able to carry out their direct responsibility for promoting peace, dissemination and promotion of fundamental human rights and freedoms, the idea arises that humanitarian operation without Security Council is an instrument capable of creating the necessary conditions for guaranteeing human rights, which as mentioned above, serve as a basis for peace and justice in the world (Lillich, 1973). Thus, there is a new treatment option that avoids side the UN Charter.

 

It is not surprising that supporters of humanitarian intervention prefer not to appeal to the UN Charter, and in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the problem is that the Declaration does not contain enforcement rules regarding determining the mechanism for its implementation. Thus, there is a direct inconsistency between the rules placed in the Charter and the rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If the Charter prohibits the use of the force, that violates the sovereignty of the state, then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the human rights, although in neither the Declaration nor the resolutions, binding to the reality, is not defined mechanism of forcing infringers (Grohotova, 2010).

 

Nevertheless, despite these contradictions, the concept of humanitarian intervention has a right to exist. And the proof of this can be given arguments, that semantic essence of which can be used as a foundation to create a full production basis right wording, perpetuate humanitarian intervention as satisfying the requirements part of international jurisprudence.

 

It is known that the concept of the states sovereignty asserts the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, and the interference is considered as a direct act of aggression. But sovereignty has internal and external component, and the value in each case cannot be an obvious fact. For example, if the sovereignty, which is a certain a priori instrumental good, does not serve the fundamental goals, in this context are protection and guarantee of fundamental human rights and freedoms, means there is a massive violation of human rights and freedoms, then the concept of sovereignty is losing value and dignity (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). In this regard, there is a need to assist the people if its government is unable or unwilling to fulfill their duties. Consequently, if approaching the problem from this perspective, it appears that large-scale violations of human rights mean nothing more and nothing less than a delegitimisation of state sovereignty; both internal and external. This idea fits into the general framework of liberal ideas and views, which became the basis for the formation of modern Western democracies constitutional and legal systems.

 

In connection with this requests some changes in the international legal system with the aim to make the concept of humanitarian law an effective mechanism to facilitate the strengthening of the basic principles of the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights that as world experience shows, is one of the highest priorities and the main problems of the consolidation of peace, security and stability in international relations.

 

First of all, there is need to clearly define and fix the goal of humanitarian intervention, which should be to ensure basic human rights and freedoms, especially the right to life, equal access to public goods, freedom of movement and religion, non-discrimination on grounds of sex, race, nationality, language and religion (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). In this context, the question is to prevent goals to recognise humanitarian intervention, regime changes and the transition to democracy, to initially set a clear legal framework for the operation and to confiscate the ability of manipulating the discussed tools in solving selfish geopolitical problems.

 

It is also necessary in the international legal norms to delineate sufficient reasons for humanitarian intervention, thereby initially eliminating inherent modern interpretations of human rights violations abstractness. Basically, there should stand widespread violence perpetrated by national, ethnic, religious or ideological principles, resulting in mass casualties and deprivation of basic living conditions.

 

Thus, humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping operations should be distinguished, since the duty is to locate an overcoming civil conflict and peaceful resolution of territorial disputes. As a consequence, the peacekeepers act as intermediaries between the actors to the conflict. The character of humanitarian intervention is different. In this case it’s not talking about mediation. The idea is that the subject of intervention assumes full sovereignty, and does not participate in its activities by the delimitation of reconciliation between the two warring parties or the dispute (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). Thereafter, the main task is implementation of a control, contributing to the formation of the state institutions that would provide conditions for consolidation of society within the framework of mutual respect for the rights, freedoms and historical traditions.

 

However, there is a need to develop a kind of code of conduct for countries that have taken hold of humanitarian intervention in territories being subject to the same intervention. It is important to note that this codex should include an obligation not to implement the intervention subjects entrusted to the society of their economic, social and political standards (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003). However, the most important element of this codex should be sufficiently well defined conditions, which will be returned the fullness of the sovereignty to the people of the country subjected to humanitarian intervention.

 

Also, there is need to institutionalise new rules and regulations regarding the conduct of humanitarian intervention. Therefore, the creation of a new independent international institution is an essential attribute of the implementation process of these standards. The task of the judicial body should be to examine the actions of the government, which would allow them to qualify as a massive violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, thereby providing a legal basis to intervene and implement humanitarian intervention.

 

Thus, some of the fundamental rules and principles that may be new rules of international law, have been identified and highlighted, governing the use of humanitarian interventions, which should recreate some order to the chaos that can be observed among the amount of legal inconsistencies and contradictions, that discredit the existence of the concept of humanitarian intervention.

 

However, during its development process it will still be difficult to eliminate the struggles arising on the basis that recreate the same practice for all the states of humanitarian intervention, is extremely difficult. In each case, when there is a need for visibility of military force under the cause of a tool, such as humanitarian intervention, you can observe an endless array of factors, which is somehow affecting the development of the situation that makes it impossible to develop a priori some general comprehensive legal models. Besides that, the adequate perception of humanitarian intervention in international law was largely undermined by speculations on this issue, in order to justify military intervention. This is a serious obstacle to international cooperation in the field of international law to create common legal rules for governing the use of humanitarian intervention.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Baylis, J., Smith, S and Owens, P (2011). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations . 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Esref, A (2003). The United Nations, intra-state peacekeeping and normative change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

 

Gorbatov, A. (2011). Humanitarian intervention: a brief analysis. Available from: www.regnum.ru/news/1401424.html. Last accessed: 17th November 2013.

 

Grohotova, V. (2010). The formation and development of the concept of" humanitarian intervention. Available from: http://justicemaker.ru/view-article.php?id=11&art=392. Last accessed 17th November 2013.

 

Holzgrefe, J.L. and Keohane, R.O. (2003). Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, legal, and Political Dilemmas.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Isgenderov, P. (2011). Humanitarian intervention of the West, from Bosnia to Libya. Available from: http://www.perspektivy.info/oykumena/europe/gumanitarnyje_intervencii_zapada_ot_bosnii_do_livii_2011-04-21.html. Last accessed: 20th November 2013.

 

Lillich, R. B. (1973). Humanitarian intervention and the United Nations. Charlottesville: Virginia University Press.

 

Ramsbotham, O and Woodhouse, T (1996). Humanitarian intervention in contemporary conflict: a reconceptualization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

 

Robert, A., ‘Humanitarian War: Military Intervention and Human Rights’, International Affairs, vol 69 no 3, July 1993.

 

Schnabel, A and Thakur, R (2000). Kosovo and the challenge of humanitarian intervention : selective indignation, collective action, and international citizenship. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

 

Weiss, T. G (1996). Humanitarian challenges and intervention world politics and the dilemmas of help. Boulder: Colo Westview.

 

Wheeler, N. J (2000). Saving Strangers : Humanitarian Intervention in International Society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.