In March 1991, Saddam Hussein’s government of Iraq experienced a rebellion by the Kurdish people. The aftermath resulted into a displacement of around 2 million civilians. This incident called for humanitarian intervention for the first time since the Cold War (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003). Not long after, Somalia invited another wave of world’s attention that resulted in another case of humanitarian intervention, it ended when a picture of American soldier’s corpse dragged on the streets was reported through international broadcast (Bueno, 2009). Media and public pressure played a new profound role in encouraging humanitarian intervention, ironically, they are also the same force that helped the withdrawal of US’s intervention. Regarding both the above cases, many argued that non intervention and the principles of state sovereignty have been breached.
The most critical controversy raised out of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, where a bombing campaign was launched with the goal of extricating the civilians from Serbian military forces and thus pressuring President Milosevic to discontinue his plans to force the Albanian population out of Kosovo.This action was carried out in absence of explicit authorization of the Security Council (both China and Russia stood that Kosovo was a domestic matter of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and should not be of interest to the Security Council). Despite of breaching Article 2.4 of the UN Charter (Baylis and Smith, 2001), NATO proceeded with their campaign against the critics who argued that doing so means breaking the universally applied laws of state sovereignty and non intervention.The actions of NATO were not condemned by the Security Council, and thus furthermore undermining the international laws preserving state sovereignty as undermining the power of the Security Council. Regarding this controversy, Professor Cedric Thornberry stated “failure to comply with existing rules must inevitably bring about a wider condition of disrespect for the law and, with it, a tendency to anarchy” (Schotle, 2000) President Boris Yeltsin also commented corresponding to this view “an action that is nothing short of undisguised aggression… Only the UN Security Council has the right to decide the use of force should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security”(Bueno, 2009)
On the other hand, supporters of intervention deem NATO’s actions were morally justified by arguing that it would be international community’s negligence not taking any action to defend the norms of human rights, and that massive violations of human rights are taking place, it is no longer a domestic matter and thus deserve the concern of the international community. Regarding the case of Kosovo, the question of whether NATO’s intervention is legitimate or not, shall be found in another argument; should the principles of state sovereignty and non intervention be disregarded for the interest of defending human rights, as Jim Whitman succinctly put it “Justice cannot wait; law cannot bend” sums up the debate (Whitman, 2001).
In all the cases of humanitarian intervention, there is a fine line between breaking the law of state sovereignty and defending the human rights. All forms of humanitarian interventions should be considered illegitimate basing the theory of state sovereignty being supreme where the government holds absolute power and cannot be restricted by pressure exerted by any other states. In its opponent’s view, the theory of state sovereignty is said by critics to be obsolete “the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed” and that “the theory never quite matched reality”(Schotle, 2000). Allan Pellet, the former chairman of the International Law Commission of the UN, approached this controversy with a modern view of sovereignty, believing that sovereignty must act concord to the fundamental human rights outlined by the UN charter, and that UN charter is not to be used as a defence for human rights violations. This view has become more significantly favored by the international community over the past decades, as the emphasis on human rights is increasingly integrated in the international agenda, thus prevailing the importance of protecting principles of state sovereignty and non intervention. The notion that sacrificing a state’s sovereignty in order maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is one which is gaining more momentum than ever. To quote Eric Heinze from the University of Nebraska, “what constitutes legitimate sovereignty appears to have shifted”(Schotle, 2000).
Moreover, sovereignty is also facing erosion in several other ways in this more and more globalized world. Economic factors such as global market forces is one of the most obvious effect that undermines the principles of state sovereignty. When states becomes increasingly involved in engaging international trades, states become more co-dependent and thus become more susceptible to being influenced by external forces. With the international economy transforming into globalized states, it is inevitable that the power of sovereignty these states hold become jeopardized.
There is an apparent shift in public’s view regarding humanitarian intervention as the world enters the twenty first century putting more focus on the emphasis of human rights over the permanence of state sovereignty. The absence of conviction of NATO’s breaching UN Charter after they intervened Kosovo, demonstrates that the public support on humanitarian intervention has increased in recent years, leaving aside whether this phenomenon is caused by the new role of media in international politics. Furthermore, the principles of state sovereignty is undergoing erosion not solely due to higher preference on human rights but also due to economic integration under globalization of market forces. To answer the question whether the practice humanitarian intervention is compatible with an international system based on the principle of sovereignty, many critics argue it is the end for state sovereignty as the current world has shifted into a new paradigm where human rights become the priority. However, sovereignty will not cease to exist as long as there are borders between nations, instead, sovereignty calls for a reassessment for its definition in order to cope with the globalization of human rights.
Word Count: 1396
BAYLIS, JOHN and SMITH, STEVE (2001). The Globalization of World Politics 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 72-93
BUENO DE MESQUITA, BRUCE (2009). Principles of International Politics. 4th ed. Washington DC: CQ Press. pp 124-136
HEYWOOD, ANDREW (2002). Politics. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp 232-234
JACKSON, ROBERT and SORENSEN, GEORGE (2003). Introduction to International Relations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 578.
SCHOLTE, JAN AART (2000). Globalization a critical introduction. United States of America: ST Martin's Press. pp 56
WHITMAN, JIM. (2001). When is it right to intervene?. New Humanist Magazine. 116 (1), 16.
KIERNAN, BEN (2002). The Pol Pot Regime, New York: Yale University Press pp 44
