Humanitarian Intervention Theory Notes

Humanitarian Intervention Theory

• Key dilemma:

  • Humanitarian intervention poses problems for international society given the interaction between states are built upon the principle of state sovereignty

  • 1990s saw development of a “clash of rights” between the rights of sovereign states to act as they pleased within their geographical jurisdiction, and rights of states to intervene to defend the human rights of individuals within other states

  • humanitarian intervention = the use of military force by one or more states to avert a humanitarian crisis in another state.

• Responsibility to Protect – R2P

  • Global political commitment endorsed by all member states of the UN at 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity

  • It is a norm – the most dramatic normative development of our time

  • 3 pillars:

1. responsibility of state to protect its citizens

2. responsibility of international community to assist states in building protection capacity

3. responsibility of international community to respond in a timely and decisive fashion when a state is “manifestly failing” to protect its people. Measured response = military force, econ sanctions, arms embargoes, international crime prosecution – sometimes known as residual responsibility

   • Has a narrow implication to 4 crimes: It excludes natural or environmental catastrophes

     • Genocide (as defined by 1948 Geneva convention)

     • War crimes (violations of the 4 Geneva conventions)

     • Ethnic cleansing

     • Crimes against humanity

• Why do we need it:

  • Civilians make up vast majority of casualties

  • Genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia; crimes against humanity in Kosovo, East Timor and Darfur = demonstrate massive failures by international community to prevent these atrocities

• Origins:

  • 1999-2000, suggested by Kofi Annan

  • government of Canada formed international commission on intervention and state sovereignty (ICISS) – published R2P in 2001

  • consensus summit declaration included commitment to R2P in 2005

  • stimuli for R2P were divergent reactions by the UNSC to events in Rwanda and Kosovo

    • Kosovo: 78 day bombing campaign by NATO to prevent exploitation of Kosovar Albanians, seens as too much too early

    • Rwanda: lack of intervention enabled Hutu majority to systematically exterminate around 800,000 Tutsis in a period of just 100 days.

• R2P and Humanitarian Intervention

  • R2P is different from HI in 3 ways:

1. HI only refers to use of military force, R2P first and foremost preventative – force last resort, only when authorised by UNSC

2. While HI interventions in the past have been justified in different situations, R2P focuses only on the 4 mass strocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity). First 3 defined in international law and codified in Rome statute

   • Had previously used a broader and more ambiguous formulation - “a population suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure”; made some states nervous about potential overreach

3. R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centered motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene, but on the responsibility to protect populations at risk. Right of states to intervene and responsibility to protect populations operate under assumption sovereignty is not absolute, but they go about this in different ways

• R2P and military intervention:

  • MI only justified when 5 criteria of legitimacy are met:

1. Seriousness of the harm being threatened

2. Primary intent or purpose of the proposed military

3. Issue of last report

4. Proportionality of the response

5. Balance of consequences – whether more good than harm would be done

   • Before R2P, intervention was sold on ‘breach of the peace’

     • Human level security fears may induce international conflict through threat of civil war and refugees

     • So, intervention justified by reference to international order and its effects on states, rather than the rights of individuals

• R2P and UN

  • At 2005 World Summit, UN member states included R2P in the Outcome Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and 139

  • Reaffirmed April 2006 in UNSC Resolution 1674

• Opposition:

  • Mainly from Russia, China and non-aligned movement

    • Russia put forward resolution in SC condemning NATO’s intervention in Kosovo

    • China and Russia both abstained from military intervention in Libya, both vetoed US attempts to invoke R2P in Syria

  • Decolonized states particularly sensitive to R2P – Gareth Evans: ‘sovereignty thus hard won, and proudly enjoyed, is sovereignty not easily relinquished or compromised’

  • Only 4 states rejected it at world summit: Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan and Venezuela

  • Countries suffering terrible atrocities made rousing pleas to strengthen and implement R2P eg. Rwanda, Bosnia, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, East Timor

  • First 4 BRICS countries refused to vote in favour of decision to intervene in Libya due to desire to pursue policies of non-intervention (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

• R2P in Practice:

  • Darfur:

    • In 2006, Resolution 1706 passed calling for rapid deployment of UN peacekeepers in Sudan, makes explicit reference to responsibility to protect

    • During worst phase, international community didn’t muster political will for military intervention, instead only humanitarian aid provided to small portion of affected population. Too little, too late

    • Western states repeatedly reluctant to deploy forces in Darfur, partly in fear of sparking violent Islamist opposition against occupying troops

  • Libya:

    • First case when UNSC authorized military intervention citing R2P

    • Defeat of Gaddafi seemed to have put new wind in sails of humanitarian intervention

    • In conjunction with rebel forces, NATO air strikes brought down Gaddafi gov, Gaddafi removed from power. Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on protestors and promise to show no mercy to citizens of Benghazi was enough to = international alarm

    • 2011 NATO intervention in Libya a legitimate development, not just...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Relations Notes.