This Article is written by Thuraya Hatim of University of Khartoum, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
The conflict between the principle of sovereignty and humanitarian Intervention continues to this day, raising many concerns about the process, effectiveness, and income of humanitarian interventions.
The problem with humanitarian interventions is that they contradict not only the principle of sovereignty but also the two articles in the United Nations Charter: Article 2(4) concerns the use of force, and Article 51 concerns self-defense. They also contradict another fundamental principle of international law, the principle of Non-intervention. Humanitarian interventions also create moral dilemmas like the abuse of power, the justifications of the interventions, and their effectiveness and consequences.
The legal and ethical dilemmas that come with humanitarian interventions and the principle of sovereignty will be solved in the future because of the globalization of the protection of human rights and the development of human rights treaties, which will impact humanitarian interventions and make them more successful in the future. At present, some developments in the international law field have led to the impact of humanitarian Intervention, like the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the huge changes in the concept of sovereignty in international law.
Keywords
Humanitarian Interventions, Principle of Sovereignty, International law, Legal Dilemma, Ethical Dilemma.
Introduction
The dispute regarding the principle of sovereignty versus humanitarian Intervention revolves around the conflict between a country’s entitlement to manage its domestic affairs without outside involvement and the ethical duty to step in during instances of grave human rights violations or humanitarian emergencies[1].
Humanitarian Intervention is one of the most outstanding actions the international community has come up with throughout history because it shows that human rights are above any law and anyone. The humanitarian Intervention can be defined as the actions that the international community takes, whether by one state or several states, to stop the severe violations of human rights like genocides, ethical cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, by applying sanctions on the state that is committing these crimes or even by using military force to stop it. The problem with humanitarian Intervention is that it conflicts with cornerstone principles in international law, like the non-intervention principle, which prohibits states from intervening in each other’s internal business, or the principle of sovereignty, which is about the power of states to run its political, social, economic and military concerns by its owns and without any interference from another country. Added to that, it contradicts with Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force, and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter about the right to self-defense, and this is in the legal aspect, on the other side it also contradictions with ethical aspect, the ethical aspect raises a lot of questions like, is the reasons of Intervention is fair enough to apply it? Or who takes the responsibility if the Intervention fails and does not achieve its purpose? And how can the international community ensure that the country intervening does not have other agenda than helping to stop human rights violations?
The relationship between humanitarian Intervention and the principle of sovereignty is very complex and controversial; both of them have their role in international relations. In order to apply humanitarian Intervention, the international community needs to set out a legal framework that will make the Intervention successful when it is needed. The concept of sovereignty, on the other side, had developed from the past; in the past, the concept of sovereignty was very narrow and had conflicts with the other laws, but after the development of the international law, sovereignty was not only for the states, but the international community can interfere in the state’s business if the state’s actions violated human rights.[2]
The Principle of Sovereignty
The Principle of Sovereignty in General International Law is regarded as one of the fundamental principles of International Law. While the concept of sovereignty was well understood by Greek and Roman philosophers in ancient times, it is now considered among the principles that have become less clear due to the development of numerous principles within International Law, leading to the internationalization of many rights that were previously solely under the jurisdiction of individual states.
After World War 2, the development of the notion of human rights and the emergence of human rights treaties impacted the principle of sovereignty in international law; sovereignty in the past was very clear and straightforward. The interference of other states in one state’s internal business is prohibited. However, the new concept of sovereignty in contemporary international law is different due to the globalization of international protection of human rights and the increasing of genocides and war crimes that violate human rights in the world. In contemporary international law, sovereignty is not only for the state, but the international community can interfere in the state’s internal issues if the state violates human rights and cannot protect its people. To sum up, in cases where there are genocides, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or any other violations that severely abuse human rights, the international community has the right to execute humanitarian Intervention in order to protect the people who are affected by it, and the reason for that that we have an ethical responsibility to stop these violations.[3]
Humanitarian Interventions
Humanitarian Intervention can be defined as a state or group of states using or threatening to use force across their borders to stop or resolve severe and widespread violations of basic human rights of individuals who are not their citizens without the consent of the state where the force is being used. Humanitarian interventions may not always involve the use of military force, as they could also involve actions like imposing sanctions. Typically, the term is used in situations where force or the threat of force is employed.[4]
Humanitarian interventions take place when there is gross violations of human rights are happening in a country, and this country cannot protect its own people, or it is actually the one who is violating these rights. The only way to execute the humanitarian Intervention is by approval from the United Nations Security Council to do so; if the UN Security Council refuses, then the international community cannot intervene, and if one of the states acts on their own, then this will be a concerned a breach the United Nation charter, which does not allow countries to use force with permission, according to Article2(4).
Later, violations against humanity occurred in Rwanda in 1994, and within two months, 800,000 people were brutally killed in an ethnic conflict between the Tutsi and Hutus. Unfortunately, the United Nations failed to respond. This is similar to what happened the following year: a group of Serb soldiers marched past Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia Herzegovina, taking the town of Srebrenica and slaughtering 10,000 Muslim men and boys. This was all part of an ongoing peacekeeping campaign in the region. Altogether, these two deaths raised doubts about the UN peacekeeping apparatus’s overall competency among many. After these two failed responses from the United Nations Security Council, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) came up with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine in 2001, supported by the Canadian government. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine states that the states have the right to intervene to protect the people whose human rights have been violated, especially if the state cannot protect its own people. The Responsibility to Protect was not legally binding. However, it has been used to justify some interventions, such as The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in Kosovo in 1999 because of the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians.[5]
Legal and Ethical Dilemmas
Humanitarian Intervention faces many obstacles in the sake of applying it; it can be divided into two dilemmas:
The Legal Aspect
- Conflicts with the UN Charter: the humanitarian Intervention contradicts two Articles in the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4), which is about the use of force, and Article 51, which gives the states the right to self-defense. The conflict here happens because the use of force, according to the UN charter, needs permission from the UN Security Council. However, the humanitarian Intervention is executed without the consent of the international community or the states that will be invented.
- Conflicts with international law principles: Humanitarian Intervention contradicts two fundamental principles of international law: the principles of non-intervention and sovereignty. However, in contemporary times, the notions of sovereignty and non-intervention have changed and become more flexible to protect human rights.
Ethical Aspect
- Abuse of power: Humanitarian Intervention can be considered an excuse for powerful states to pursue their own strategic interests, which may violate international law and undermine sovereignty, like what happened when the USA intervened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
- Effectiveness and Consequences: The United Nations Security did not set any standard to decide whether the Intervention was effective or not. It is true that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that was issued by The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 was a turning point in the history of the Humanitarian Intervention, but at the same time it was not legally binding. In addition, there are still some questions that still need to be answered, such as who takes responsibility when a humanitarian intervention fails to meet its purpose?
The good news is that the globalization of international protection of human rights and the development of human rights treaties will eventually have an impact on humanitarian Intervention as it did with the principle of sovereignty. To have successful humanitarian interventions in the future, a solid legal binding instruments and treaties needs to be issued, and the states have to cooperate with each other in order to enhance the role of Humanitarian Interventions to protect populations from genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Conclusion
In summary, the controversy surrounding humanitarian Intervention versus sovereignty highlights how difficult it is to strike a balance between a country’s right to sovereignty and the moral need to stop grave violations of human rights. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine that was issued in 2001 by The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) has given rise to a framework for the justification of humanitarian Intervention in some situations, even though international law is still ambiguous on the subject.
The legal and ethical and legal dilemma that faces humanitarian interventions such as the abuse of power, the effectiveness and consequences, Conflicts with international law principles, and conflicts with the United Nations Charter, Despite the shortcomings in international relations regarding these matters, gradually, these issues will be solved, and the proof of this claim the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the development of the concept of sovereignty in the international law that led gave the humanitarian interventions a chance.
The continuous discussion around this matter emphasizes how difficult it is to find the correct balance in a society that is always changing: upholding human rights and respecting sovereignty. International cooperation and coordination between states and robust legally binding instruments will make a lot of difference in the field of humanitarian interventions in the future.[6]
References
- Advocates, V.L.L.P., Sovereignty v. Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Perspective [WWW Document]. URL https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sovereignty-v-humanitarian-intervention-legal-perspective-vllp2017-rjutf/ (last visited 24 Aug 2024)
- Al-Haj, A.A., 2013. Principle of the State’s Sovereignty and the Phenomenon of Humanitarian Intervention Under Current International Law. Canadian Social Science, 9(1), p.116. 2013
- Bell, D.. “humanitarian intervention.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention. (last visited 25 Aug 2024)
- Lang, A.F., Humanitarian Intervention. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations (pp. 133-150). Routledge. 2016
[1] Advocates, V.L.L.P., Sovereignty v. Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Perspective [WWW Document]. URL https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sovereignty-v-humanitarian-intervention-legal-perspective-vllp2017-rjutf/ (last visited 24 Aug 2024)
[2] Bell, D.. “humanitarian intervention.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention. (last visited 25 Aug 2024)
[3] Al-Haj, A.A., 2013. Principle of the State’s Sovereignty and the Phenomenon of Humanitarian Intervention Under Current International Law. Canadian Social Science, 9(1), p.116. 2013
[4] Bell, D.. “humanitarian intervention.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention. (last visited 25 Aug 2024)
[5] Lang, A.F., Humanitarian Intervention. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations (pp. 133-150). Routledge. 2016
[6] Advocates, V.L.L.P., Sovereignty v. Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Perspective [WWW Document]. URL https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sovereignty-v-humanitarian-intervention-legal-perspective-vllp2017-rjutf/ (last visited 24 Aug 2024)
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments