‘Principally International law prohibits Intervention, however in certain exceptional cases it is considered to be valid.’ Discuss
INTRODUCTION
Intervention in general means to intervene in someone else’s private matters or internal activities. In international law, intervention is defined by any state’s or states’ interference in another state’s internal activities in order to protect basic human rights of the citizens, citing reason that the concerned state (or rather the government or ruler governing that state) has been incapable or unable to provide/secure the basic human rights to its people. Intervention may occur without the consent of the concerned state/government. There is conflict within the very definition of humanitarian intervention, since protecting the citizens from abuse and violation of rights to some degree is in conflict with carrying out military action against that state, which puts the citizens at risk of harm. The benefits and downsides of humanitarian intervention are outlined by Krylov. The roots of ‘humanitarian intervention’ can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Intervention is a controversial issue at international law due to questions regarding its morality, violation of state rights, and subject to abuse. Humanitarian intervention is generally classified as either ‘multilateral’ or ‘unilateral’.
Multilateral interventions are those authorized by the UNSC. Although intervention has been practiced since long, it is a very controversial action, the main reason being that it violates the right of a state to govern its own affairs. Still, in certain cases it becomes necessary when the matter of international peace and security arises.
There are several reasons given by writers as to why humanitarian intervention is frowned upon. Altman and Wellman recognized that every state has a right to govern its ‘internal affairs’ and intervention by other states or parties is considered a violation of this right. Moreover, a good number of innocent civilians may be affected due to military intervention. However, Bauhn has initially proposed a somewhat harsh view that the responsibility for such civilian casualties resides with the tyrannical ruler or government under which the atrocities are being committed. Nevertheless, Bauhn later stated that the damage caused to these innocent civilians should be weighed against the greater benefit, and intervention should be undertaken only if there is a good chance that it will be effective. Other, more peaceful measures such as ‘economic sanctions’ should be tried before any sort of intervention. ‘Political realists’ as mentioned by Bauhn, are in support of intervention only if it favours the intervening state’s ‘national interest’. However, this seems to be an extremely insensitive view since it means you are aware of severe ongoing massacre but doing nothing to prevent it. The UN Charter does not explicitly give permission to states to intervene in other states’ internal affairs.
DILEMMAS
Sometimes states may consider assassinating a tyrannical leader of another state to stop the human rights violations there. Altman and Wellman have noted that the support for assassination as a means of intervention remains very little, if any at all; however, assassination may be necessary in some extreme cases, and that the leader(s) should be duly warned before.
There are numerous cases of abuse of intervention. For example, Hitler had claimed when taking over Poland that he was doing it ‘to protect the rights of the minority Germans’ there. Hitler gave the same reason when invading Czechoslovakia. Bellamy and Wheeler have also cited France’s intervention in Rwanda in 1994 as an instance of abuse of intervention. The extent of intervention by NATO in Kosovo was in excess of what was necessary, and it came at a time too early to determine whether intervention was actually required. Clarke claimed that although it was argued that NATO’s intervention in Kosovo could be viewed as necessary, it was still not legal. The 20th century was marred with numerous cases of human rights abuse by different states. For such abuses, some writers are completely against intervention.
Altman and Wellman have suggested that intervention decisions taken by organizations like NATO are even not entirely neutral. The intervention of NATO in Kosovo was also not based on humanitarian grounds because it ignored the more severe incidents of human rights violations ‘in Darfur’. Belloni pointed out that NATO’s intervention here was more to serve its own purpose, rather than humanitarian grounds.
WHEN INTERVENTION MAY BE REQUIRED – MORAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
Despite the restriction on intervention as per Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, several Articles and Sections in the Charter does clearly allow intervention in extreme situations that violate human rights on a massive scale or that threaten ‘international peace and security’. Intervention was deemed valid according to classical international law. Fisher has said that in case of severe violations of human rights, if another state (or group of states) does not intervene, it becomes equivalent to favouring the violations. Thus it then becomes incumbent upon another state to intervene. Donoghue also said he believes that intervention is required in several situations, as has been noted throughout time.
According to the ICISS, before considering armed intervention it must be made sure that all other alternatives such as sanctions have been tried and found ineffective. Still, intervention may be deemed an option only if it is found that there is massive ongoing human rights violations such as genocide, rape etc. when the sanctions fail, Article 43 under the UN Charter allows military action to be taken against the state.
Altman and Wellman further illustrated what is meant by the extreme cases of human rights violations. Altman & Wellman noted carefully that even if the government is deemed oppressive by its citizens but is not committing these extreme atrocities, then intervention will not be justified. ‘State breakdown’ has been stated as another situation which could call for humanitarian intervention Genocide has been cited as one major situation where intervention is deemed justifiable. For example, the massacre of Muslims in Yugoslavia in 1993 called for intervention by NATO. Massive abuse and repression of human rights, lack of intention to abide by international guidelines (especially those set by the United Nations), and defiance to ‘all peaceful and diplomatic channels’ all call for humanitarian intervention. The objective of intervention should not be to oust the government or party carrying out similar atrocities on a lower scale than what is considered to be the ‘threshold’.
One additional thing is that the extent of the intervention should be just enough to end or sop the ongoing violence or atrocities, but no more than that.[1] This point is very important to note, since humanitarian intervention has been abused by several states in several instances.[2] If the target state is responsible for atrocities above the threshold mentioned earlier, then it loses that right to govern its own affairs, and then intervention may be considered. Christopher also had the same view, that the rights of the state to sovereignty could be respected only as long as the state respected human rights of its people. Mill, although against intervention, acknowledged these exceptions when it was deemed valid. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and Zimbabwe, where human rights conditions are deemed below par compared to international standards, may also face possibilities of intervention. Moderate force was used by the United States in northern Iraq after the Gulf War, and in Haiti. Altman and Wellman have also refuted a view put forth by a few other writers that majority of the people need to welcome or ask for intervention in order for it to be considered valid. Benjamin believes that restrictions on ‘unilateral’ intervention should be eased until the human rights policy of the UN is more effective. Once the peace-keeping bodies like the UN ‘become [more] effective’, the decision to intervene can be entrusted upon them, rather than being done unilaterally by states.
INSTANCES OF INTERVENTION IN HISTORY, AND PAST AND CURRENT STATUS
Past:
Humanitarian intervention has existed long before the United Nations Charter in 1945 – it had been incorporated into ‘customary international law’. Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia had intervened in Macedonia in 1912.[3] The restriction to intervene by force in other states’ matters as per the UN Charter had not stopped the support for, and exercise of intervention although it was not legal to undertake intervention according to the UN Charter. Bellamy and Wheeler have described the period after the Cold War and the 1990s as a period during which there was a proliferation of humanitarian intervention, as we shall see in the instances given below However, on the other hand, as Bellamy and Wheeler noted, this increases the chance of abuse by different states.
Instances of Intervention:
Unilateral
India intervened (in favour of Bangladesh) in the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971. This intervention was deemed valid because it sought to and managed to stop the massive atrocities (human rights violations) being committed, and was ‘welcomed’ by the Bangladeshi people. However, several writers have contended that India’s reasons for intervention were not purely humanitarian. But still, the move was generally considered a valid intervention on humanitarian grounds.
In 1979, Tanzania intervened in Uganda to stop the bloody reign of the then-President, Idi Amin. This move was welcomed by many countries, including the people of Uganda, other African countries, UK, US, and Russia.
The ECOWAS intervened in Liberia in 1992, when the UN, US and OAU did nothing to help.
Two controversial instances of unilateral intervention both involved the United States, intervening once in Grenada (1983) and in Panama (1989). The reason given by the US in case of Grenada was that there was possibility of human rights violations had they not interfered. Two of the reasons given by the US for justification of intervention in Panama, were restoration of democracy, and to ensure security ‘of American citizens in Panama’ The US intervention in Panama was severely criticized by international parties.
The intervention by Vietnam in Cambodia in 1979 was also unilateral; however, Vietnam at that time did not have ‘a democratic government’, but still it saved the Cambodians from the ongoing genocide.
India’s intervention in the Jaffna Peninsula was also a failed attempt on humanitarian grounds, and was deemed to be politically motivated
NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, as mentioned earlier, was not explicitly allowed by the UNSC although it was not condemned by the UNSC either.
Interventions authorized by the UNSC:
One of these interventions was the intervention in 1991 to stop Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in northern Iraq – by the US, France, and UK.
Another instance was the intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia, 1994, where massive slaying of Muslims was taking place. Although shrouded in controversy, interventions authorized by the UNSC are viewed as more appropriate as opposed to unilateral interventions.
Present Status:
The UN Charter does not directly give power to the UNSC to authorize any intervention, but in instances where it becomes conspicuous that human rights are being violated at an extreme level that is affecting people’s security at home and abroad, humanitarian intervention is undertaken as a desperate resort This implies that although not stated in the UN Charter, humanitarian intervention is tolerated and allowed in international law. Still, the UNSC does exercise its power to authorize intervention. However, the many dilemmas on its objectives, principles and methods and use in different situations still raise questions. The decision to intervene, according to Bauhn ultimately depends on the theory of ethics followed by the intervening state or regime. Currently, neither international law nor customary international law officially recognizes the right or duty of states to partake in cross-border intervention.
Despite the controversy surrounding military intervention, Benjamin noted that the UN is seeking to make humanitarian military intervention legal, and that even if the concerned state does not ask for help, the UN will still intervene on humanitarian grounds. However, as noted by Davidson, military intervention rarely occurs for completely humanitarian reasons, and that there is almost always another reason of the intervening state(s), something which favours its national interest; and even if interventions do occur on solely humanitarian grounds, they are usually not that effective. Nevertheless, intervening to put an end to massive human rights violations is still deemed better than wilfully ignoring them.
OPINION
I personally also agree with several writers cited here, that intervention is rarely undertaken on a completely objective, humanitarian basis. At least that is what history shows: most of the interventions brought about some sort of benefit to the intervening state(s). Also, the right to intervene on humanitarian grounds has also been ignored and a blind eye has been turned to genocide in certain instances, for example NATO ignored the more extensive genocide going on in Dafur, and the United States and the United Nations both stood by without acting during the genocide by the Pakistan army in Bangladesh in 1971. The problem with the supposed right to intervene is that severe human rights abuses like genocide need to happen before the intervention can be authorized – a mere probability of the genocide happening is not reason enough to carry out the intervention, as we have already read. There is also a double standard: the UN Charter mentions that other peaceful methods such as peace talks need to be tried before intervening – but take the case of the current Israel-Palestine conflict; Palestine is saying it is ready for peace talks, but Israel is simultaneously continuing to expand settlement in the West Bank – an act directly hampering any chance of a peaceful channel. Also see the numerous times the United States, via the CIA, have tried to assassinate Fidel Castro, just to bring about democracy in Cuba – this is a perfect example of the liberal imperialism mentioned by Pattinson earlier in this report. The United States is trying to intervene clearly to satisfy its own interests, but it is claiming that it is acting to liberate the suppressed Cubans. The United States, as a permanent member of the UNSC, also has a significant influence over the UNSC; moreover, a large proportion of funds for the various UN branches come from the United States. Therefore, the UN cannot entirely act in a neutral manner. Given the UN Charter’s implied provision to allow force in case sanctions fail, Iran at present seems to be at a risk of intervention; the UN has already slapped multiple sanctions on Iran, and Iran is continuing to defy them. The UN is in this case showing the reason that international peace and security are at risk since Iran allegedly shows signs of harnessing nuclear energy. That may be true, but Israel has nuclear weapons, the US has nuclear weapons, India has nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons – why should those states have the right to own nuclear weapons when Iran, another sovereign state, should not? Thus military intervention in this case will be a very biased decision, even if the UNSC authorizes it.
CONCLUSION
The right to intervene in another state’s affairs is truly a complicated issue to decide upon. Different groups of thoughts hold different views, as we have seen. We have seen the multiple cases of abuse of intervention, which further worsen the consensus view on the matter. Although the UN Charter does not legalize the use of force, many states, and the UNSC itself, have undertaken intervention: sometimes the results were positive, and in other cases, not so much beneficial. Most of the time the intervening state or organization has acted more in its own interest than to act on solely humanitarian grounds. International peace-keeping bodies like the UN has also failed to respond to some extreme situations of human rights abuse even when intervention was required, as we have also seen. On a different note, since the UN Charter does not specifically ban states from intervening, many states have undertaken the action, and intervention, given its stipulations, is tolerated under the extreme conditions and situations mentioned above. For Bangladeshis at least, the intervention by India during the Liberation War of 1971 is a perfect example of how important and beneficial humanitarian military intervention can sometimes be. Although in general military intervention should be refrained from, it has been clear from the various instances of intervention put forth in this paper, that in certain situations, intervention can indeed be considered valid.
Altman, A. & Wellman, C.H. (2008). From humanitarian intervention to assassination: Human rights and political violence. Ethics, 118, pp.228-257. The University of Chicago. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/targetedkilling/papers/AltmanWellmanHumanRights.pdf
Bauhn, P. (2011), A morality of humanitarian interventions. International Dialogue, A Multidisciplinary Journal of World Affairs, 1, 23-42. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.unomaha.edu/idj/Issue1/Bauhn_HumanitarianIntervention.pdf
Beckman, R. & Butte, D. (n.d.). Introduction to international law. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf
Bellamy, A. J. & Wheeler, N. J. (n.d.). Humanitarian intervention in world politics. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/1925/Wheele?sequence=1
Belloni, R. (2002). Kosovo and beyond: Is humanitarian intervention transforming international society? Human Rights & Human Welfare, 2(1), 35-43. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/belloni2-1.pdf
Benjamin, B. M. (1992). Unilateral humanitarian intervention: Legalizing the use of force to prevent human rights atrocities. Fordham International Law Journal, 16(1). The Berkeley Electronic Press. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=ilj
Bergh, A. (2007). The legal status of humanitarian intervention. Lunds Universitet. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1319977&fileOId=1319978
Clarke, J. N. (n.d.). A pragmatic approach to humanitarian intervention. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/files/2011/04/a072.pdf
Crovelli, M. R. (n.d.). Humanitarian intervention and the state. University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://mises.org/journals/scholar/crovelli2.pdf
D’Amato, A. (2010). ‘There is no norm of intervention or non-intervention in international law’. Faculty Working Papers, Paper 80. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=facultyworkingpapers
Davidson, J. (2012). Humanitarian intervention as liberal imperialism: A force for good? POLIS Journal, 7. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/students/student-journal/ug-summer-12/joanna-davidson.pdf
Deqiang, C. (n.d.). Humanitarian intervention: From a right to intervene to a right to protect. Retrieved March 18, from http://gdoshisha.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/dr-chi.pdf
Donoghue, A. O. (2005). Humanitarian intervention revisited. International Law, 1(2), 165-175. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.hanselawreview.org/pdf2/Vol1No2Art3.pdf
Dowell, A. (n.d.). The international community and intervention in case of genocide. POLIS Student Journal, 1(1). University of Leeds. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/students/student-journal/amy-dowell-summer-09.pdf
Erhan, Z. (2012). Humanitarian intervention. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.strategicoutlook.org/publications/humanitarian_intervention.pdf
Evans, G. (2006). From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 24(3), 703-722. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://globalbrief.ca/blog/2011/06/27/humanitarian-intervention-is-only-justified-when/
Finnemore, M. (n.d.). Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Finnemore.pdf
Goodman, R. (2006). Humanitarian intervention and pretexts for war. The American Journal of International Law, 100(107). Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/rgoodman/pdfs/RGoodmanHumanitarianInterventionPretextsforWar.pdf
Greenwood, C. (2002). Humanitarian intervention: The case of Kosovo. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, X. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21492/1/Humanitarian_intervention_the_case_of_Kosovo%28LSERO%29.pdf
Hardie, K. (2009). Humanitarian intervention, human rights and the use of force in international law. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/2446/2/02Whole.pdf
Heinze, E. A. (2006). Humanitarian intervention and the war in Iraq: Norms, discourse, and state practice. Parameters. Rerieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=460747
Heselhaus, S. (n.d.). International law and the use of force. Retrieved March 18, 2013.
Hollenbach, D. (2010). Humanitarian intervention: why, when & how. Commonwealth Magazine, CXXXVII(19). Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/boisi/pdf/f10/Hollenbach_Remarks_Commonweal_Magazine.pdf
Janakiram, K. (2004). Is humanitarian intervention, without explicit Security Council authorization, lawful? The Case of Kosovo. Retrieved Marc 18, 2013, from http://www.lawanddevelopment.org/docs/humanitarianintervention.pdf
Kardas, S. (2001). Humanitarian intervention: The evolution of the idea and practice. Journal of International Affairs, VI(2). Retrieved http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SabanKardas2.pdf
Khalid, I. (2011). Politics of intervention: A case of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(11), 73-79. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._2_No._11_%5BSpecial_Issue-June_2011%5D/10.pdf
Koji, W. (2003). The Debate on Humanitarian Intervention. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 11-18. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/HumInterv/human_watanabe.pdf
Kolb, R. (n.d.) Note on humanitarian intervention. RICR Mars, 85(849), 119-134. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_kolb.pdf
Krylov, N. (1995).Humanitarian intervention: Pros and cons. Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L.J., 17(365). Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=ilr
Okoronye, I. & Okeke, V.O.S. (n.d.), An appraisal of humanitarian intervention under international law. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.google.com.bd/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=an+appraisal+of+humanitarian+intervention+under+international+law&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajol.info%2Findex.php%2Fnaujilj%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F82394%2F72549&ei=UbVGUZjzD4SNrgefn4GICg&usg=AFQjCNGaVvHDiEdqlZoQdICAImZ13t9VPA&bvm=bv.43828540,d.bmk
[1] See Okoronye, I. & Okeke, V.O.S. (n.d.), An appraisal of humanitarian intervention under international law, p.138: “The force or help applied should be proportional. That is to say that the force deployed should be such that is necessary to end the violations but no further.”
[2] Altman, A. & Wellman, C.H. (2008). From humanitarian intervention to assassination: Human rights and political violence, p.247.
[3] Benjamin, B. M. (1992). Unilateral humanitarian intervention: Legalizing the use of force to prevent human rights atrocities, p.129.