Humanitarian intervention and world politics

Introduction Background knowledge: 1) Non-intervention is the norm in the international society. 2) Humanitarian intervention poses the hardest test for an international society built on principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and non-use of force. Fundamental Questions: 1) Should murderous states be afforded protection of the norms of sovereignty and non-intervention? 2) What responsibilities do other states have to act as guardians of human rights in the society of states?

What is humanitarian intervention? Objections to legitimizing humanitarian intervention The Solidarist case for humanitarian intervention State practice during the cold war Post-cold war humanitarian interventions Globalization and non-forcible humanitarian intervention Conclusion

What is humanitarian intervention? R.J. Vincent’s definition of intervention: Activity undertaken by a state, a group of states or an international organization which interferes coercively in the domestic affairs of another state. It is a discrete event having a beginning and an end, and it is aimed at the authority structure of the target state. It is not necessarily lawful or unlawful, but it does break a conventional pattern of international relations. Definition of humanitarianism acts: To prevent and alleviate human suffering, which means that non-political and impartial in the sense that all human beings are included as worthy of concern irrespective of sex, race, and nationality. But the expression of humanitarian sentiments in world politics is a product of changing historical, social process.

A definitive judgement on its legality Restrictionists argue that the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter renders forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this general ban is the right of self-defense in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Counter-restrictionists argue that there is a legal right of unilateral and collective humanitarian intervention in the society of states.

Objections to legitimizing humanitarian intervention Five key objections by pluralist international society theorists 1) States don’t intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons: Realism tells us that states only pursue their national interests and thus humanitarian intervention is ruled out since states are motivated solely by what they judge to be their national interests. 2) States are not allowed to risk their soldiers’ lives on humanitarian crusades: Realism tells us that states must not behave in humanitarian way. If a civil authority has broken down or is behaving in an appalling way towards its citizens, it’s the responsibility of that state’s citizens and its political leaders. There is no obligation of outsiders.

3) The problem of abuse: In the absence of an impartial mechanism for deciding when humanitarian intervention was permissible, states might espouse humanitarian motives as a pretext to cover the pursuit of national self-interests. 4) Selectivity of response: States will always apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively, resulting in an inconsistency in policy. They will intervene only when they could get benefits. 5) Disagreement on what principles should govern a right of humanitarian intervention: In the absence of a consensus on what principles should govern a right of individual or collective humanitarian intervention, such a right would undermine international order. Humanitarian intervention will always be based on the cultural preferences of the powerful.

The solidarist case for humanitarian intervention Solidarist international society theory is committed to developing consensual moral principles that would legitimate a practice of humanitarian intervention in international society. 1) Protection of human rights: Counter-restrictionists contend that the promotion of human rights should rank alongside the maintenance of international peace and security pointing to the preamble to the UN Charter and Articles 1(3), 55, 56 of the Charter, which provide a legal basis for unilateral forcible intervention.

2) A customary right: An alternative grounding for a legal of unilateral humanitarian intervention is found in a customary right. Counter-restrictionists argue that states were permitted to engage in humanitarian intervention under pre-Charter customary international law. 3) Is humanitarian intervention morally required?: A legal right of humanitarian intervention enables intervention but it does not determine it. To ensure intervention in cases where it is desperately needed, states would have to recognize a duty or obligation to act.

State practice during the cold war The motives and official justifications of the Tanzanian and Vietnamese interventions: Humanitarian considerations don’t seem to have been decisive in the decisions of Vietnam and Tanzania to intervene. Vietnam and Tanzania justified their interventions in terms of the traditional norms of the society of states. The response of international society: The reluctance of the society of states to legitimize humanitarian intervention reflected fears about setting precedents which could erode the non-intervention principle. In the polarized world of the late 1970s, reactions to the Tanzanian and Vietnamese interventions were conditioned by cold war geopolitics.

Post-cold war humanitarian interventions The role of humanitarian sentiments in state decisions to intervene: Media images of human suffering have led Western publics to pressurize their leaders into post-cold war humanitarian interventions. How legal and legitimate were the interventions: Humanitarian intervention secures its greatest legitimation when it is done through the Chapter 7 enforcement provisions of the Security Council, confirming the dominance of the restrictionist view of the illegality of non-Security Council authorized humanitarian intervention. Non-Western states, notably Russia and China, are suspicious of legitimating humanitarian intervention through the broadening of Chapter 7.

Fears about rule-consequentialism and abuse remain powerful barriers to legitimating humanitarian intervention outside of the Security Council. =>The humanitarian character of interventions should be judged in terms of motives, means and outcomes. 3) Were the interventions successful?: * Short-term outcome: The immediate alleviation of human suffering through the termination of genocide or mass murder and/or the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians trapped in war zones. * Long-term outcome: How far intervention addresses the underlying causes of human suffering by facilitating conflict-resolution and the reconstruction of viable polities.

Matrix of humanitarian intervention- motivation and outcomes Humanitarian outcomes The international intervention in Northern Iraq in April 1991 Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in December 1978 and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda The UN intervention in Somalia from May 1993 to February 1995 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 Non-humanitarian outcomes

Globalization and non-forcible humanitarian intervention Non-forcible humanitarian intervention is characterized by the pacific activities of states, international organizations, and INGOs in the global humanitarian community. Non-forcible humanitarian intervention spans the crisis management activities of humanitarian INGOs and third party conflict-resolution by states and non-state actors. INGOs have succeeded in broadening the humanitarian agenda to include issues of development, the environment, and women’s rights. Dominant Western political and economic elites encourage a crisis management approach to complex humanitarian emergencies which does nothing to tackle the underlying causes of these emergencies. The slow death of millions through poverty and malnutrition are just as pressing cases for HI.

Conclusion Non-forcible humanitarian intervention is a progressive manifestation of the globalization of world politics. But forcible humanitarian intervention is sometimes the only way to respond to massive human rights abuse. Each arguments have to be judged on its merits comparing pluralist international society theory with Solidarist international society theory.