Humanitarian Intervention

von: Julia Heise

Content

1. Definition and history  3-4

2. The classical debate about humanitarian intervention 4-9

2.1. Principles and main issues  4-5
2.2. The English School- arguments for and against humanitarian intervention 5-7
2.3. A customary international law and an emerging norm for intervention? 7-8
2.4. Criteria for justifying forcible humanitarian intervention  9

3. New approaches to the classical debate 10-11

4. Conclusion 11-12

Bibliography  13-15

Especially since the post-1945 era and the United Nations-establishment, international political theory has been concerned with the topic of humanitarian intervention and a complex debate, touching principles of international society and our human existence, has emerged. It focuses on two levels: the traditional debate is concerned with the arguments for and against intervention in relation to the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention and non-use of force versus global human rights norms. The critical approach to humanitarian intervention moves beyond the classical debate and its limits in providing new aspects.1 Additionally, the international society recently has to deal with lots of problems. 9/11 and the war in Iraq have given rise to new challenges and terrorism prescribes a new and unique dimension for humanitarian intervention.

This essay aims to provide a clearer understanding of current issues and the complex debate concerning humanitarian intervention. Due to lack of space it can only give a rough overview about the topic. Thus it first offers a definition of humanitarian intervention and a brief historical overview about the UN. Secondly, it deals with the classical debate and related issues. The third section is concerned with critical approaches to and new ways of looking at intervention. The essay concludes by offering possible solutions to the debate.

1. Definition and history

First it is necessary to emphasise that the classical debate refers mainly to forcible humanitarian intervention2 when discussing humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention has been defined by Murphy (1996: 11-12) as the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights.3 This refers to a humanitarian context as act to stop the abuse of fundamental human rights.4

Therefore conditional to the debate about humanitarian intervention is the existence of universal human rights. These have been established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.5 The United Nations was founded at the end of the Second World War as an international body to protect and uphold international peace and security. 6 The UN is crucial to humanitarian intervention since it is both - the basis for the international society and its main principles, laid down in the United Nations Charter (the UN- founding document), and the core source for universal human rights. It is the only international body that can authorize an act of intervention. Having defined humanitarian intervention, the focus will now turn to the classical debate about intervention.

2. The classical debate about humanitarian intervention

This section will first give an outline of the main issues related to the classical debate, which has been dominated by the English School. It then addresses the legal, moral and political arguments in favour or against humanitarian intervention. The third part of the chapter focuses on whether a new norm of humanitarian intervention is emerging. The section concludes by analysing criteria for justifying an intervention.

2.1. Principles and main issues

The English School advocates a state centric approach to forcible humanitarian intervention. It focuses on arguments for and against intervention in discussing an underlying contradiction: the international society, formed by states, is built on the principles of sovereignty7, non- intervention, non-use of force and self-determination. These norms conflict with humanitarian intervention since the breach caused by intervention would violate them. They are enshrined in customary international law8 and the UN Charter9. Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of the Charter express a clear prohibition on violations by states of the sovereignty of other states and self-defence against armed attack is the only justification for the use of force under Article 51.10

[...]

1 The complexity of the debate has been perfectly expressed by Hoffman: “The very act of intervention and non-intervention and the justification offered tells us a great deal - about how we conceive of ourselves, how we construct our identities and how we conceive of and construct the world in which we live.” (1993: 194)

2 Wheeler and Bellamy define forcible humanitarian intervention as “(…)military intervention which breaches the principle of state sovereignty where the primary purpose is to alleviate the human suffering of some or all within a state’s borders.” (2001: 477)

3 The definition refers to actions against the will of the target state and the latter phrase includes acts committed by state and nonstate actors. The definition of forcible humanitarian intervention/ humanitarian intervention provided here is important for the understanding of section 2. It excludes economic, diplomatic and other sanctions such as trade embargos as well as conflict resolution, national reconciliation, nation building, interventions to protect the intervener’s own nationals and other non-forcible means. For further definitions of humanitarian intervention see Tesón (2003: 94)- a definition from a liberal point of view- and Holzgrefe (2003: 18).

4 In contrast, an intervention has been defined by Wheeler as “(…) forcible breach of sovereignty that interferes in a state’s internal affairs.” (2001: 472-473). See also Vincent (1974: 13) for a traditional definition of intervention. Please note that if the term ‘intervention’ is used in this essay it will from now on only refer to humanitarian intervention.

5 For a discussion of the Universal Declaration Model see Donelly (2003: 22-37). For a discussion about universal human rights versus ethnocentrism see Booth (1995: 112-120) and Forbes (1993: 217).

6 The UN currently maintains the membership of 200 states. For an overview about the United Nations see Taylor (2001: 331-352).

7 For a definition of sovereignty see Heywood (2000: 37-39). For a discussion of sovereignty see Brown (2001: 127-131) and Holsti (2004: 112-142).

8 Compare footnote 17.

9 The principles have first been established in the Treaty of Westphalia 1648. Compare de Waal and Omaar (1994:3).

10 The Charter even limits the UN itself from intervening in domestic and internal matters of states with Article 2(7). But the Article also states that the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII (see footnote 11) can override Article 2(7) itself. Compare Roberts (1993: 433).