In my Last Post, I spoke about Humanitarian Intervention and explained that though law does not permit it, practice shows that it does exist.

Having established the fact that Humanitarian Intervention does indeed exist, the issue now is not whether a state should intervene or not, rather, what the state that intervenes should conform to. Over the last 40 years, a number of governments have justified unilateral military action with reference to the “customary law” of military humanitarian intervention in one form or another, and without exception, the international community has refused to recognize these actions as legitimate. But this “customary law” is not “written” or “codified” and offers no guidance to the manner in which the intervention itself should be conducted.

The conspicuous lack of legally “binding” material governing humanitarian intervention has led to a situation of marked chaos. Article 2(4) does not suffuse any intervention on humanitarian grounds with legality. In the Nicaragua Case, the ICJ explicitly ruled that the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights. The ICJ added that that there is no general right of intervention in international law, and therefore, intervention violated international law. Scholarly writings and perspectives are divided on the legality of intervention on humanitarian grounds, and the law as it stands notes that any military intervention on humanitarian or related grounds, violates international law.

Even in practice, many states are both wary, and uncomfortable with the way Humanitarian Intervention can go, in practice. In theory, the ideals are lofty, the intentions are creditable and the proposed methods are fantastic. But when they translate into practice, the issues at stake are plenty – the collateral damage is heavy, the basic essence of a state’s existence is assaulted by the damage to its sovereign and territorial integrity, and there is always a sense of “how much is enough”, that stands out as a niggling feeling when it comes to morals.

So why not “outlaw” humanitarian intervention altogether, then? For the simple reason that one of the special characteristics of International Law lies in that violations of law may lead to the formation of a new law, so that an international custom could be intentionally created. The ground reality outweighs the dictates of the legal regime, and therefore, it is time that humanitarian law be legally regulated, instead of outlawed.

Self-defence, the only legally recognized exception to the prohibition on the use of force is governed by a five-pronged procedural mandate that functions as a precondition. A similar legal framework propping humanitarian intervention would be in order, to bridle the implementation under the rubric of the law.

A proper course of action within the framework of the law should essentially provide for a mandate that requires adherence to six principles.

The legal instrument must ideally mandate:

  1. Just cause.
  2. Prior and mandatory authorization from a multilateral body
  3. Bona fide intention.
  4. Probability of Success.
  5. It must not involve the use of force, except as a last resort.
  6. If force is used, it must be necessary and proportionate to the degree of graveness in the situation.

The six grounds that should in effect be the key drivers behind intervention on humanitarian grounds will be discussed in the next post.

 

Views: 117

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Global Ethics Weekly: Millennials, Climate Change, & Foreign Policy, with Nikolas Gvosdev

Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev discusses the generational divide in U.S. politics in the context of foreign policy and the environment. What are the international implications of initiatives like the Green New Deal? What would an "America First" environmental policy look like? And what happens if the U.S. continues to take a backseat on this issue?

A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, with Adam Gopnik

In his eloquent defense of liberalism, Adam Gopnik goes back to its origins and argues that rather than being emphasizing the role of the individual, "two principles, the principle of community and the principle of compromise," are at the core of the liberal project. Indeed, these are the essential elements of humane, pluralist societies; and in an age of autocracy, our very lives may depend on their continued existence.

Global Ethics Weekly: The Mueller Report & U.S. Foreign Policy, with Jonathan Cristol

A lot of the talk about the Mueller Report has focused on its political and legal implications, but how will it affect U.S. foreign policy? Adelphi College's Jonathan Cristol discusses the reactions of allies and adversaries to Trump's passivity in the face of massive Russian interference in the U.S. election and congressional inaction and public apathy concerning presidential corruption. Plus, he details recent U.S. policy moves on Iran and the significance of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's speech to U.S. Congress.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.