Humanitarian Intervention and International SocietyJennifer M. Welsh

Alexandra Crãciun

Debate: sovereignty principle vs. new int’l norms on use of force for humanitarian purposesSimon Chesterman – Just War or Just Peace?

Humanitarian Intervention and International Lawlegal issues; against right to humanitarian intervention• Nicholas J. Wheeler – Saving Strangers:Humanitarian

Intervention in International Societydifferent view on state practice (justification); new

norms that legitimate humanitarian intervention since Cold War

• International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty report

attempt to reconcile nonintervention w/ respect for human rights; offers guidelines for responding, preventing, rebuilding

From legal Q to ethical dilemmasJust War or Just Peace - background 1999 Kosovo bombingsI argument- Origins of humanitarian intervention: justice of war

>imoral enemy(H.Grotius); pr. of nonintervention as sovereignty component; moral, religious differences vs. legal restraints btw equal states society

- Modern doctrine of nonintervention connected to positivism in int’l law, replaced the Grotianist theory; intervention to be used only in civil wars (clear separation btw ppl-sovereign); League of Nations + Briand-Kellogg – peaceful means

Article 21. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign

equality of all its Members.3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by

peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

II argument- Loophole in Art 2(4) would permit use of force because Hum

Intv > Charter if only violates territory and Hum Intrv respects Art 1 (3) [3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;]

- SC: humanitarianism + democracy cannot be counted as exceptions giving sole authority to UN Security Council

- SC: shows danger of promoting custom>treaty (controversial from the point of view of Vienna Conv)

- SC doesn’t see a clear notion of HI, but if recognized this HI right would be missused under disguise of humanitarianship => weaken int’l law

II argument (cont’d)- last 10 yrs: increase in UN authorized intervention

missions – in support of new customary rights- 2 cases on intv: =>w/ consent of host to have

foreign troops (HI violation is not a valid justification for intv yet, but int’l stability threatened by these violations)

=>more problems after intv, when need to rebuild raises Q of legitimacy of international bodies

- there are moral concerns for both cases

Ethical DimensionICISS: sovereignty and nonintervention also protect

people and societies [China has seen the Kosovo situation one that might legitimate the right to change political systems + indepedant ways for development]

Consequences of intv can be overwhelming:1.Too many variables, outcome might compromise national

interest, new opposition with unmet expectations, hostility from other similar governments

2.Use of force => chaos, moral obligation to prevent war > human rights violation

3.Mutual tolerance of differences (political, social cultural values not homogenous)

Sovereignty as ResponsabilityNicholas Wheeler & ICISS:- background: events in Rwanda; ICISS response to Kofi Annan

- Legal + moral objections on HI; consensus on legitimate cases of HI

- ICISS report: had to promote debate on HI; to create new global political consensus on how to proceed; find new way to reconcile sovereignty w/ HI; the shift from “right to intervene” to “responsability to protect” shows focus on requirements of need + assistance

- N Wheeler work: on solidarist side of international society; agrees with constructivism (new norms enable new practices of development); HI is the only legitimate exception to nonintv and use of force

Sovereignty as Responsability cont’d

New HI norm = to be used when all diplomatic actions fail, as measure to protect the people

Sovereignty as responsability = conditional, state has to respect minimal standard of human rights

=>can be applied when a commnunity fragments, cometing actors cause unrest, case of extreme humanitarian emergency

=> Number of lives lost are outnumbered by saved ones; “simpathy”and “empathy” offered to political leaders

Arguments for consequentialist objections:- Which ones: short or long term?- National interest vs new sources of instability- Adjusting to intrastate conflicts- Individual rights vs collective rights similar

among many nations- Sovereignty should not be protected at

whatever cost- Use of force ≠ law + morality are not

operational anylonger

Establishing CriteriaJust War. Criteria for HI/ responsability to protect:N. Wheeler: 1.just cause 2. last resort 3. proportional use of force 4. high probability to achive Hum. outcomeICISS: 1. right cause 2. right intention * 3. right authority * 4. last resort 5. proportionate means 6. reasonable prospects**ICISS complicates the matters or make them more accurate?

Challenges for Just War Concepts:

Unknown reactionsThreshold conditions = politicalNew politics New technological realities