Anne Orford Lawful Authority

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) is a concept that has its roots in the philosophy of “Human Security”. Human Security can be defined as focusing on the individual human being as the referent object of security as distinct from the nation-state. R2P and Human Security have gathered impetus in the international community both in academic and policy spheres with a view to these concepts being justifiers for humanitarian intervention.

Should the slightest abuse in human rights give the right for states to “intervene”. Who decides those human rights? The West? The U.S invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction and because of the horrible man Saddam Hussein was. However, when he gassed his own people, there was no invasion of the country. The world may not be able to agree on all human rights issues; however they should realize that everyone has the right to live. When there is systematic killing of an ethnic civilian group, genocide is occurring. There are no acts of genocides, there is just

In principal a humanitarian intervention is “an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Centre for Strategic Studies New

Humanitarian effort is an interesting topic to me. While reading about these efforts it is clear that people are at the heart of such efforts. Humanitarian efforts should be guided by goals such as; humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality. These important principles should be at the core to humanitarian work. It is critical to distinguish humanitarian action from other forms of activities. Humanitarian Laws, International Human Rights Law, and International Refugee Laws provides the frame work for fundamental legal standards relating to the protection of groups and individuals, as well as to the nature of the assistance being provided. In thinking about this topic along with the first of two questions needed to complete this assignment, I researched International Law as a Basis for Humanitarian Intervention. I discovered that there is no state right to humanitarian interventions. Furthermore, I learned that no government has the right to violate the territorial integrity and political independence of another country, locality or state under any circumstance. In my own opinion basic human rights have to be met no matter the circumstance.

Even though the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 is an excellent illustration of the failure of the State of Rwanda to observe and apply its state responsibility toward its population, especially the Tutsi minority, Nation states have inter alia several responsibilities towards the population under their jurisdiction, which include protection against egregious atrocities, genocide, mass murder, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing… International law emphasizes Nation states responsibilities and assures that no one State or a group of Nation states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason whatsoever in the internal or external affairs of any other State. However, what are the consequences of a State failure, inability, or unwillingness to protect its own population? And most importantly, would another State stand still while communities are being slaughtered just because it has no right to intervene in the domestic jurisdiction of another State, just like it happened in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s? Additionally, are there other reasons that can allow a State or a group of Nation states to intervene, legally under the

Security Council should have the right to authorize the use of military force to protect innocent people from genocide and other massive abuses, even against the will of their own government” (Lobe). Even with the support of the majority of world, the U.N. still does not have the authority to forcefully protect innocent people from cruelty.

After the end of the Cold War there has been an increase in the use of force for humanitarian purposes around the world in places such as, Liberia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On February 2001, the Foreign Policy Research Institute hosted a major conference on the question of humanitarian intervention and its implications for American foreign policy. The conference focused on examining the recent history of humanitarian intervention and its prospects in the new century (Wheeler, 2000, 128). Thus, this paper is going to review the existing literature of humanitarian intervention. Firstly, it will define the notion of humanitarian interventions and analyze the dilemma between intervention and the concept of sovereignty. Secondly, it will question if the United States has the legitimate right to intervene as a third party responding to humanitarian crises.

In the debates raised by humanitarian intervention raises the question of the need to create a new "right of intervention" in humanitarian terms when there is already a binding law (Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Genocide) and the UN Charter, in Chapter VII, allows intervention in the internal affairs of a State in the case of "threat against peace." Among the other issues raised, there those actors interference (NGOs, international and intergovernmental organizations, States ...), as well as its extension to other areas: democratic interference, judicial interference, environmental

What is humanitarian intervention? Well there is no standardized definition that has been made official, but general consensus typically refers it, as using military force to intervene in another states affairs. A blogger from Ljubljana, Slovenia defines humanitarian intervention as; a state 's use of "military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." (Marjanovic). With that said, this paper will examine the article “Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World”, written by

Humanitarian Intervention is perhaps the most controversial principle of international law and although it has been theoretically present for a long period of time but it is in the recent decades we find real development and practical implementation of it. There are a number of questions that have been haunting the international community and holding them back from adopting a liberal approach towards the Principle of Humanitarian Intervention. Whether or not it is morally permissible or even morally obligatory for a state to intervene in internal affairs of a State to stop Grave Human Rights violation? A States claim of Immunity against intervention based on the longstanding Principles of Sovereignty is legitimate to what extent? Whether

This therefore brings us to really examine whether it is lawful for a state to use force to protect its citizens from threats such as terrorism. We then examine the laws that have been put in place by international organizational bodies such as the United Nations (UN).

The state is responsible for upholding the rights of citizens through their justice system, police force, and government. All of these establishments can fail by denying existing rights and intentionally or inadvertently passing laws that discriminate against certain people. They can fail to provide favorable conditions to exercise rights and engage in acts against it’s citizens. States can be held accountable for the actions of non-state actors because they have allowed for violations against their citizen’s human rights. These tensions occur because of a failure within the agreement between the citizens and the state and the state with humanitarian law, similar to the Social Contract. The state has an agreement with the treaties they are

Although non-militant humanitarian intervention holds many superior traits to military intervention, sometimes global powers have no alternative except to demonstrate military force. Humanitarian military intervention must only be utilized in a limited set of circumstances. First, global powers must only employ military force to combat extreme catastrophes such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Second, global powers may use military intervention as a last resort, having exhausted all other non-militant options. Finally, interventions who meet the first two criteria must only respond to the situation with a proportionate response. In his article, “Humanitarian Intervention: Loose Ends ,” Fernando Tesón describes this

In 2011, Operation Unified Protector performed air strikes over Libya, destabilizing the country and enabling the murder of Libya’s dictator of 42 years, Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi. The United Nations Security Council justified the Libya Intervention for NATO allies on the grounds of an imminent humanitarian crisis that was thought to occur at the direction of Gaddafi. Thus, the United States, UNSC, and NATO allies are culpable for the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi, because of their misuse of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for their “Humanitarian Intervention” in 2011.

Humanitarian intervention is certainly among the most debated topics of recent years in stately, organizational, and academic forums. The focal point of the controversy is the conflict between traditional ethics and practices of state sovereignty and newly accepted norms on the use of force for humanitarian resolutions. Despite the political and social disagreements between a given set of nation states, humanitarian intervention is now an adopted, international practice that demands intervention anytime a high percentage of the population (of any state) is at risk or under threat from their own authorities or those of another state.