12.3 Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention is a complex issue in international relations, balancing the protection of human rights with respect for state sovereignty. It involves military action by states to prevent or stop large-scale human rights abuses in another country, often without that country's consent.

The topic connects to broader ethical debates in international relations, including the tension between human rights and state sovereignty. It raises questions about when intervention is justified, the potential for abuse, and the challenges of implementation in a complex global landscape.

Definition of humanitarian intervention

• Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by one or more states to prevent or stop large-scale human rights abuses or mass atrocities in another state, typically without the consent of the target state's government
• The primary goal of humanitarian intervention is to protect civilians from severe harm, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity
• Humanitarian interventions are often controversial due to their potential to violate state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in international law

History of humanitarian interventions

Pre-20th century examples

Top images from around the web for Pre-20th century examples

• 

  Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Humanitarian intervention - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Spanish–American War - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Humanitarian intervention - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Pre-20th century examples

• 

  Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Humanitarian intervention - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Spanish–American War - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Humanitarian intervention - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• In the 19th century, European powers occasionally intervened in the Ottoman Empire to protect Christian minorities, such as the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) and the Crimean War (1853-1856)
• The United States intervened in Cuba in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, citing the need to protect Cuban civilians from Spanish colonial rule
• These early interventions were often motivated by a mix of humanitarian concerns and strategic interests of the intervening powers

Post-World War II examples

• After the Holocaust and the establishment of the United Nations, the international community became more aware of the need to prevent mass atrocities
• During the Cold War, humanitarian interventions were rare due to the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and the principle of non-intervention
• In the 1990s, humanitarian interventions took place in northern Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992-1993), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), and Kosovo (1999), with varying degrees of success and international support

Legal basis for humanitarian intervention

UN Charter and state sovereignty

• The UN Charter emphasizes the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention in domestic affairs (Article 2(4) and Article 2(7))
• However, the Charter also promotes human rights and allows for the use of force authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII to maintain international peace and security
• The tension between state sovereignty and human rights protection has been a central debate in the legality of humanitarian intervention

Responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine

• The R2P doctrine, endorsed by the UN World Summit in 2005, states that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity when the state fails to do so
• R2P consists of three pillars: (1) the state's responsibility to protect its population, (2) the international community's duty to assist states in fulfilling this responsibility, and (3) the international community's responsibility to take collective action if a state fails to protect its population
• While R2P has gained recognition, its legal status and implementation remain controversial, as it challenges traditional notions of state sovereignty

Ethical arguments for humanitarian intervention

Moral obligation to prevent atrocities

• Proponents argue that the international community has a moral duty to prevent or stop large-scale human rights abuses and mass atrocities, as they constitute a grave violation of human dignity
• The principle of common humanity suggests that all individuals have a right to be protected from severe harm, regardless of their nationality or the sovereignty of their state
• Failing to intervene in the face of atrocities may be seen as morally equivalent to complicity in the crimes committed

Human rights protection vs state sovereignty

• Advocates of humanitarian intervention argue that the protection of fundamental human rights should take precedence over state sovereignty in extreme cases
• They contend that sovereignty is not an absolute right but carries responsibilities, including the protection of a state's population from severe harm
• When a state fails to fulfill this responsibility or actively perpetrates atrocities against its citizens, it may forfeit its sovereignty and legitimize international intervention

Ethical arguments against humanitarian intervention

Respect for state sovereignty and non-intervention

• Critics argue that humanitarian intervention violates the fundamental principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention, which are essential for maintaining international order and stability
• They emphasize that states have the right to govern their internal affairs without external interference, and that intervention can set a dangerous precedent for future violations of sovereignty
• Opponents also point out that the UN Charter and international law prioritize state sovereignty and allow the use of force only in self-defense or with UN Security Council authorization

Potential for abuse and ulterior motives

• Skeptics of humanitarian intervention argue that states may use humanitarian justifications as a pretext to pursue their own strategic, economic, or political interests
• The selective application of humanitarian intervention, with some crises receiving attention while others are ignored, raises questions about the true motives behind these interventions
• There is a risk that powerful states may abuse the concept of humanitarian intervention to interfere in the affairs of weaker states and advance their own agendas

Criteria for justified humanitarian intervention

Just cause threshold

• A just cause for humanitarian intervention requires the existence of large-scale human rights abuses or mass atrocities, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity
• The severity and scale of the abuses must be sufficient to justify the use of military force, which is an extreme measure in international relations
• The just cause criterion aims to prevent the abuse of humanitarian intervention for less pressing situations or for ulterior motives

Right intention requirement

• The primary intention of the intervening states must be to halt or prevent human suffering, rather than to pursue self-interest or strategic gains
• Humanitarian objectives should be the driving force behind the intervention, even if other motives may also be present
• The right intention requirement seeks to ensure that humanitarian intervention is not misused for non-humanitarian purposes

Last resort consideration

• Military intervention should be considered a last resort, after all other peaceful means, such as diplomacy, sanctions, or negotiations, have been exhausted or proven ineffective
• The use of force should only be contemplated when there is a reasonable belief that other measures will not succeed in halting the atrocities
• The last resort criterion aims to prioritize non-military solutions and to prevent the premature use of force

Proportional means assessment

• The scale, duration, and intensity of the military intervention should be proportional to the threat posed by the human rights abuses or atrocities
• The use of force should be limited to what is necessary to achieve the humanitarian objectives and should minimize harm to civilians and infrastructure
• Proportionality requires a balance between the expected benefits of the intervention and the potential costs and risks involved

Reasonable prospects of success

• There should be a reasonable likelihood that the military intervention will succeed in halting or preventing the atrocities and protecting the affected population
• The intervening states should have the military capacity, resources, and political will to carry out the intervention effectively
• The reasonable prospects criterion seeks to avoid interventions that may cause more harm than good or that have little chance of success

Challenges in implementing humanitarian intervention

Political will and international consensus

• Mobilizing political will among states to undertake humanitarian intervention can be difficult, as states may prioritize their own interests or be reluctant to bear the costs and risks involved
• Achieving international consensus on the necessity and legitimacy of intervention can be challenging, particularly in the UN Security Council, where the five permanent members (P5) have veto power
• Disagreements among states can lead to delays, inaction, or limited interventions that may not effectively address the humanitarian crisis

Operational and logistical difficulties

• Conducting military interventions in foreign territories can be operationally complex, requiring significant military assets, logistical support, and coordination among participating states
• Intervening forces may face challenges such as difficult terrain, lack of infrastructure, cultural and linguistic barriers, and hostile local actors
• These operational difficulties can hinder the effectiveness of humanitarian interventions and increase the risks to both intervening forces and local populations

Unintended consequences and long-term impact

• Humanitarian interventions can have unintended consequences that may worsen the situation or create new problems in the target state or region
• Military interventions can lead to civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure, and the displacement of populations, which may exacerbate the humanitarian crisis
• The long-term impact of interventions on the political, social, and economic stability of the target state and the region must be considered, as interventions may have lasting effects beyond the immediate crisis

Case studies of humanitarian interventions

Kosovo (1999)

• In 1999, NATO launched a 78-day air campaign against Yugoslavia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians by Serbian forces
• The intervention was conducted without UN Security Council authorization, raising questions about its legality and setting a precedent for future interventions
• While the intervention ultimately led to the withdrawal of Serbian forces and the establishment of an international presence in Kosovo, it also resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure

Libya (2011)

• In 2011, the UN Security Council authorized a NATO-led intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces during the Libyan Civil War
• The intervention, which began as a no-fly zone and arms embargo, quickly escalated to include airstrikes against Gaddafi's forces and support for rebel groups
• While the intervention contributed to the overthrow of Gaddafi, it also led to a power vacuum and ongoing instability in Libya, with competing factions and the rise of extremist groups

Non-intervention in Rwanda (1994) and Syria (2011-present)

• In 1994, the international community failed to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, which claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis, over the course of 100 days
• The lack of intervention in Rwanda has been widely criticized as a failure of the international community to prevent mass atrocities and has led to calls for more effective responses to humanitarian crises
• In Syria, the ongoing civil war since 2011 has resulted in widespread human rights abuses, war crimes, and the displacement of millions of people
• Despite calls for intervention, the international community has been largely unable to agree on a course of action, due in part to political divisions and the complex geopolitical context of the conflict

Future of humanitarian intervention

Reforming the UN Security Council

• The current structure of the UN Security Council, with five permanent members holding veto power, can hinder effective responses to humanitarian crises when the P5 have diverging interests
• Proposals for reforming the Security Council include expanding its membership, limiting the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, or creating a "responsibility not to veto" norm
• Reforming the Security Council could help to improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of UN-authorized humanitarian interventions

Developing regional capacities for intervention

• Strengthening the capacities of regional organizations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to undertake humanitarian interventions in their respective regions could help to address crises more quickly and with greater local understanding
• Regional interventions may be seen as more legitimate and less politically charged than interventions by external powers
• However, regional organizations may also face challenges related to resources, political will, and the potential for regional rivalries to influence interventions

Addressing root causes of conflicts and atrocities

• Preventing humanitarian crises from occurring in the first place should be a key priority for the international community
• Addressing the root causes of conflicts and atrocities, such as political repression, economic inequality, ethnic tensions, and resource scarcity, can help to reduce the need for humanitarian intervention
• Investing in conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and sustainable development efforts can contribute to creating more stable and resilient societies less prone to mass violence and human rights abuses