(R2P) Norm

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

The United Nations fights for humanitarian issues through the use of peaceful dialogue between countries and leaders. The UN's powers of authorising peacekeeping, sanctions and force when absolutely necessary is given to it by the UN charter, an international treaty. They are limited by the fact that they cannot make their resolutions and policies the law, however the important conversations they start and ideas that are shared are influential upon the many powerful leaders who choose to listen.

Many perceive humanitarian intervention as a way to provide protection for people in instances of gross human rights violations, however, the concept has become increasingly contentious (Rashid, 2012). Contentions concerning humanitarian intervention are multifaceted; humanitarian intervention infringes upon state sovereignty which is perceived as a crucial basis for international order, yet, infringement is often justified by contentions focusing upon the universality of human rights and a responsibility to protect and promote them (Atack, 2002). While there are alternative definitions, for the purposes of this paper humanitarian intervention will be considered to be, ‘the threat or use of force by a state (or group of states) across another state’s borders which aim to prevent or end widespread violations upon the fundamental human rights of individuals … conducted without the

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The numerous and continuing violations of International Humanitarian Law can only be stopped and reduced if both parties to the conflict commit to implementing practical measures for protecting civilians and especially civilians with disabilities. The responsible authorities of both conflicting parties must implement training, regular supervision and the ongoing evaluation of the conduct of all persons under their command towards the protection of civilians. Specific orders for the protection of all civilians, including civilians with disabilities, must be given by the superior officers of both conflicting parties in order to stop any illegal actions by their Armed Forces or militia and they must suppress any violations against civilians and

Although wars and military interventions are part of global reality, the involvement of International Organizations in these types of actions have changed and evolved: the military intervention model has shifted into a multifaceted repertoire of actions where force is one component among many others. Since 1990s, the range of coercive actions taken by the SC has been enhanced by combining sanctions and preventive measures with military interventions. Certainly, under the Chapter VII of the UN Charter are contemplated the coercive measures that the Council can authorize in order to restore peace in any given situation, including sanctions and the use of force.

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

The United Nations General Assembly, on 24th September 2012, held a High-level meeting on the Rule of Law at both international and national levels, a declaration adopted in that meeting and recognized by the

International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states, to the maintenance of international peace and security. Although, some of the country may agree to definition of international norms, there are some countries that does not agree with the United Nation international laws that generally accepted as international norms. Even though, some country does not agree with UN international laws, because of the powerful nation that are the member of the nation, the Security Council can enforce their international law via various ways toward a state or individual; and the International court of Justice (ICJ) also give advisory opinion to get settle between state to state conflict, in accordance with international law.

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

There are different interpretations of what might be a threat to international peace and security and when is the case for a country to self-defence. However, there are issues that are unanimously considered as threats by the Security Council and other UN members. These are the incidents that may result to a war including disputes over the geographical possession of a territory and resources (i.e. Kashmir dispute) and ethnicity or ideological conflicts (Balkan). War may also be fuelled by the economical interests of a group or a country as it was the case with rebels funded by conflict diamond in Angola and Sierra Leone.

We have thus far acknowledged, via several examples, based on the politics involved in the process of mutual recognition of states, that the issue of international legal sovereignty or international legal validation is a de facto versus de jure consideration. Is this, however, a trend in the legal procedures in international relations? The law, based on our previously defined definition, must be applicable to the actors in the community in which it is operating. If, in the realm of international relations, the law can be voluntarily and regularly flouted by

A growing discussion amongst IR scholars and International legal scholars alike has been the debate on if International law (IL) is really law especially since it lacks the basic characteristics of domestic law. Is international law a law just in name or in action also? If it is a law, do states obey this Law? And why will it be in the interest of a state to obey such law (if it does exist). This essay is an attempt to explain what IL is and to point out likely reasons why it is in a state interest to obey IL. This essay is drawn largely from work written by various scholars at different times to draw my conclusion

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an