Essay on The Strengths and Weaknesses of International Law

The efficiency of humanitarian intervention is normative because of people having different views on the output and the unlikeliness of every one being pleased by the new regime therefore it is very hard to affirm the real results of the intervention. In 2011, a group of countries intervened during the Libyan civil war, which lead to the abolition of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. The Operation Unified Protector by NATO was partly successful because they achieved to kill the dictator on 20th October, but partly ineffective because the standards of living in Libya have not increased and the state is facing a lack of government’s ruling. This case study supports the statement that HI could be an abandoned project as it is not always favourable to everyone.

NATO has impacted human rights around the world by enforcing existing laws, forging alliances between countries, and being a trailblazer in protecting human rights. During the Libyan Civil War of 2011, protestors that wanted democracy were brutally subdued and slaughtered by the special forces of the Libyan government (Haglund). Since they are the ones perpetrating the atrocities, it is natural that they would not want the international community to interfere. However, NATO successfully invoked the Responsibility to Protect, which is an idea adopted by the UN in 2005 that when a country is either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or in this case, crimes against humanity, then others can step

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

When a country encounters a catastrophic situation where human rights are being violated, it is the state’s responsibility to protect its nation. Frequently state’s shift from humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect as a solution to human rights violations. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a states’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.”1 In order for a state to successfully protect, according to Anne Orford in the article Lawful Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, they must “prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (pg 248, Orford) A state is responsible for protecting its population, if they fail to do so the responsibility and authority to do so shifts to the international community.

Since the start of the Syrian civil war, over 250,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has recently declared acts of genocide and crimes against humanity to be occurring in Syria, yet a massive military intervention has yet to occur. The conflict has now begun to effect mainland Europe and western powers, as the rise of ISIS has become a threat to the whole of the international community. With Germany taking in millions of refugees, they have absorbed most of the inherent terror risk, but with the recent airport bombings in Brussels and the attacks in Paris, ISIS has shown that if they are not met in Syria with grand military force now, they can and will carry out these same terror attacks in the United States and other western countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. This paper will give a brief overview of the history of the current Syrian conflict starting in 2011, and will determine whether the United Nations and the international community has jurisdiction to intervene with military force under specific documents like the Rome Statute, the United Nations 2005 Outcome Document, the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by comparing the current Syrian conflict to the Libyan Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. Lastly, this paper will provide options for Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada 's participation under the legal jurisdiction of

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have represented the end of the warfare system built in the aftermath of the Second World War. On the other hand, the tough US reaction culminated in the creation of a new order shaped by the terrorist threat and characterized by the so-called “war on terror”: an unprecedented way of doing politics and conducing conflicts. This scenario brought new challenges and perils to the legal framework aimed at regulating the relationships within international actors: international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law. New tendencies on behalf of States jeopardize the international system as a whole.

Following the United Nations (UN) supported declaration of independence in 1951, the United States (U.S.) established diplomatic relations with Libya. Due to Libya being an active member of the international community, the U.S. has strategic interests in a stable Libya and to continue indorsing support for a free, democratic Libya (Libya, n.d.). Furthermore, building democratic institutions, protecting the universal rights of all Libyans, promoting accountable and honest government, rebuilding its economy, and establishing security throughout the country are challenges Libya faces. The following paper will discuss Libya in relation to the U.S.’s involvement and continued significance to regional security and U.S. national security (Affairs, 2013). The U.S. has focused on supporting capacity building efforts within Libya’s government institutions, developing civil society and facilitating free and fair elections since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 (Libya, n.d.). Instability in Libya would significantly affect the world’s U.S. based major oil companies invested and operating within Libya. Furthermore, the U.S. has a trade and investment framework agreement with Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, of which Libya is a member to consider if sanctions are once more placed upon Libya (Libya, n.d.). To counter this instability, the U.S. coordinates projects with the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). U.S. targeted assistance to Libya

In the spring and summer of 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. After seeing the tragedies that took place in Nazi Germany, one would expect the international community to respond quickly and effectively in the case of the Rwandan genocide. However, the killings were largely pushed aside or ignored by the rest of the world, begging the question of when states have the right or duty to betray another state’s sovereignty. There are different methods of intervening to protect human rights, but they are much debated and there have been many times that intervention has made a situation worse. However, there is a moral obligation that we all have to protect others when we can, whether they are part of our nation or not. If human rights are being abused in a state, other states have the duty to take multilateral actions to stop killings and provide aid.

The purpose of intervention should be the protection and promotion of human rights. “Armed interventions have a substantial likelihood of imposing disproportionate risks upon individuals, even when there are severe rights violations within a possible target state. Yet, nonviolent strategies will often be insufficient to stop such violations.” Then, the decision to intervene is dependent on a great number of factors that are taken into account before any action is taken. In spite of that, lives are on danger when these decisions are being discussed. Just as intervention is not justified by any suspicion of violation, it is erroneous to stop any attempt to intervene because of the inexistence of violations of genocidal proportions. If governments

Lately, globalization has created tendency including governance. Thereby, many states have authorized international institution to intervene and mediate conflicts between global sides so as to preserve human rights and protect innocent people. However, we occasionally notice that it is not always the case as it was pretended to be. For instance, it is possible and true that such organizations can fail to protect human life, even on purpose. United Nation Security Council is entitled to maintain human rights in the global scale and thus it must intervene into conflicts which comprise threat to innocent civil people. Nevertheless, the circumstance of the Kosovo war allows us to think about and even question the legitimacy of this institution.

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.