Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention Introduction to International Relations Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention Jaechun Kim

The fundamental problem of Humanitarian Intervention in IR: Human Rights   Sovereign Rights   Restrictionists vs. Counter-restrictionists Pluralist international society theory vs. Solidarist international society theory These two different schools present different solutions to the dilemma…

Restrictionists (Pluralist) intervention violates the cardinal norm of international relation – principle of sovereignty… Protecting sovereignty is more important.. invoke Article 2 of UN Charter (principle of non-intervention)   Counter-restrictionists (Solidarist) we should give priority to protection of HR… there is legal right of unilateral and collective humanitarian intervention… Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and many other resolutions…

Major rationales for approving humanitarian intervention (Case of solidarist theory of intl society; case of counter-restrictionists) Growing consensus on common humanity Is this view right, though? Protection of H R is becoming a major concern of int’l community…unilateralism is OK when intervening… In some cases, not intervening is simply morally wrong…  

The Responsibility to Protect has three “pillars”. The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) – a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging norm, or set of principles, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of, Mass Atrocity Crimes. The Responsibility to Protect has three “pillars”. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities; The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility; If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort. In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law.

Rationales for disapproving HI Primary motive of HI hardly is humanitarian (realist argument…) There is good reason to be suspicious about the motives… States should not risk the lives of their soldiers on humanitarian grounds… (morality can’t be the foundation for states’ foreign policy)… Both interventionism and non-interventionism has thin foundation in realism..  

Problem of abuse Ligitimization of HI will lead to the abuse of intervention… because of the subjective nature of human rights… HI will be the tools of intervention for strong countries… Selectivity in response… States apply HI selectively… Northern Iraq (1993), KOSOVO, Somalia (1992), North Korea; Rwanda, East Timor, Sudan… Myanmar, maybe Pakistan… No consensus on what principles should govern a doctrine of HI.. Rule-consequentialism: intl society will be better off if we can uphold the principle of sovereignty instead of allowing HI in the absence of consensus.

Two cases of intervention during the Cold War Tanzania’s intervention (?) in Idi Amin’s Uganda Vietnamese intervention (?) in Pol Pot’s Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)   They all claimed that they were acting in self-defense… Good intentions don’t necessarily result in good results….

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

Big question here is then: When (on what occasions) can intervention justified?   Which means justify the cause? Does it always have to be military intervention? What about non-forcible humanitarian intervention?

Case Study: Intervention in KOSOVO Issue at stake – Serbia’s Milosevic regime killing Kosovo Albanians… US-led NATO intervention (1999) Objectives of intervention? National Interests? – Strengthening of NATO to contain Russia; Prevention of refugee problem.. Humanitarian concern? Milosevic killed 20,000 Bosnians already… Little bit of both!!

Criticisms and Rebuttals UN Security Council did not sanction the aerial bombing – Violation of Intl Law!!  Russia and China  UN SC resolution was not feasible due to objection from Russia and China; Unilateral action was inevitable… Aerial bombing was in violation of principle of sovereignty… Intl law stipulates that use of force can be justified only in case of self defense!  We don’t have to observe sovereign rights of repressive regime…

The role of public opinion in humanitarian intervention Was it successful? Maybe too little and too late??…or too much?? Some say ‘aerial bombing’ was not the right means of intervention… The role of public opinion in humanitarian intervention Kosovo, Somalia, Northern Iraq…

East Timor History Selectivity issue here…the US hands-off approach… West Timor was colonized by Dutch and East Timor was colonized by Portuguese West Timor became a part of Indonesia after WWII, and in 1974 Portuguese gave up East Timor. Then East Timor declared independence. Indonesia forcibly took over East Timor Indonesian rule in East Timor was often marked by extreme violence and brutality; estimates of the number of East Timorese who died during the occupation vary from 60,000 to 200,000 East Timor finally became an independent state in 1999… Selectivity issue here…the US hands-off approach…

Darfur Crisis Ethnic clash Non-Arabs or black people vs. Arabs Competition for resources (farmers vs. herdsmen) Special treatment given by the gov. to Arab tribes Rebellion against the gov. Gov. retaliated… Janjaweeds! Independent South Sudan

Humanitarian intervention in North Korea? Is there humanitarian crisis in North Korea? What are the intentions of the US and the West? Security interests of the US (during the Bush administration – Regime change in North Korea? Genuine humanitarian purpose? What are the proper means to deal with the situation? Double standard of the West Saudi Arabia Pakistan East Timor… Sudan…

Non-forcible humanitarian intervention viable? Walzer – military intervention acts as short-term palliative… should pay close attention to the underlying causes of the human rights problems…

What justify humanitarian intervention? When there are two distinct peoples and one side try to crush the other… When genocide is taking place… When people actually want to be rescued… When rescue will reliably halt the suffering… And the intervention must be proportional to the sufferings endured…