Realism suggests that states only ever act for their self interests and so when military action is taken, it cannot be called humanitarian intervention because it is deemed to be for the interveners self-interest (Bayliss and Smith. 2005: 558). This argument can easily be put in front of the allied invaders of Iraq in 2003, which firstly went as disarmers to relinquish Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but then became liberators on a humanitarian mission to free the oppressed Iraqis from Saddam. Was that the real intension not to secure the oil-fields? This question has not been answered but is looking more and more likely that it is the case. Therefore humanitarian intervention can, and possibly is used as a cloak to peruse traditional national interests (Bayliss and Smith. 2005: 559).
If a state is going to risk its troops in a fight not of their making without real benefit at the end of it then it could be argued it is not fair to risk the lives of those troops to do so, especially when there are questions about legality. Realists argue that a government doesn’t have the right to put members of their armed forces at risk on behalf of a foreign population (Pugh. 1997: 139). It is argued that the welfare of states citizens is solely the business of that states citizens and government and it is up to them to solve any problems that may arise, not the international community who have no moral obligation to help in these cases (Parekh 1997: 56).
A main argument for the use of humanitarian intervention is that there is a minimal level of human rights that a state must uphold for that state to keep its sovereign status, and thus its protection via Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter (Deng et al. 1996: 32). When a state fails to stop human rights violations or genocide for example it is clearly unable to successfully operate as a state, and if the state is an active party in these types of atrocities then it cannot claim to be anything other than a murderous state (Shaw. 1994: 68). This argument therefore, does not challenge the consensus that it is illegal to use military force against a sovereign state unless in self defence or when a conflict constitutes a threat to international peace because the state no longer deserves sovereign status (Sutch and Elias. 2007: 164).
There are lawyers who claim that there is a legal right of humanitarian intervention in both UN Charter law and customary international law (CIL), who are known as counter-restrictionists, as they oppose the legal restrictions to humanitarian intervention that restrictionists advocate. It is argued that along with the right to self defence, “humanitarian intervention is a legitimate exception” to the ban on the use of force (Bayliss and Smith. 2005: 560). Intervention is sometimes morally required in the common humanity world we find ourselves in through a mixture of globalisation that has brought humanity closer together and up to minute news that means that we simply cannot ignore what is going on around us.
There are occasions when the only way to stop a slaughter is to use force against the slaughterers. If we are going to condemn actions of genocide for example then we have to be willing to do something about it. Humanitarian intervention does not belong in the realm of law but has to become a morale choice which nations inevitably have to make (Bayliss and Smith. 2005: 560). However, sometime politics can interfere where it is not required. For example the Russian Federation would have vetoed any attempt to get a UNSC resolution to use military force in the case of Kosovo. The case for atrocities taking place was well documented and so a veto from Russia would have been nothing more than a self inflicted blow to its credibility. Therefore if action needs to be taken, sometimes it must be done by whoever is willing to do it, even if that means unilateral action such as in the case with Kosovo (Holzgrefe. 2003: 52).
Post 9/11 there is a renewed idea of humanitarian intervention that is wrapped up in the war against terror. The states that are likely to bear victim to incidents that require humanitarian intervention are sometimes the same who have links with terrorism. Therefore Annan’s plea for a reaction to atrocities is becoming ever more military based with numerous objectives wrapped up into one, with humanitarian intervention being one of them (Sutch and Elias. 2007: 166).
The idea that there are non-military means to deal with violent actors is ridiculous. If a country is suffering genocide, sanctions will be too slow to help the people suffering. However, non-forcible action does work in cases such as famine (Shaw. 1994: 169). The atrocities named by Annan in his statement occur mainly in poor, struggling states, and so a weapon that could and should be used to prevent such actions taking place is increased funding of these sorts of states to strengthen their economies which in turn will reduce the amount of atrocities that are taking place all over the world (Bayliss and Smith. 2005: 575).
In judgement, Kofi Annan is right, we must act in cases of extreme human rights abuses and where genocide rears its ugly head. We live in world that values common humanity which makes forcible humanitarian intervention acceptable, and the only real weapon in the civilised world’s arsenal to combat such atrocities. It is preferable to gain multilateral action from the UNSC, but this is not always possible and can take too long to get, meanwhile genocide continues. In these cases it cannot be right that politics gets in the way of action, and vetoes in the UNSC should not be able to be used in cases where obvious and hideous breaches of human rights and genocide are taking place. The Law sometimes has to be bent in the case of moral obligation. This means that unilateral action sometimes must happen as it did with NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. These responses will never be perfect or completely agreed upon but are nonetheless crucial and have to happen. This includes the fight against poverty and famine which often go unheard as they are not a ‘loud’ human catastrophe. It is the mandate of the powerful to help, as it is solely them who can. Non-military means are preferable but when there was genocide in Rwanda for example, the only possible way of stopping the atrocities would have been to use an armed response. It must be stressed that own national interests sadly do get in the way of fair and just action but this doesn’t mean that no action should ever be taken. The way to get around this is to have clear and well defied objectives before action is started.
Word Count: 1500
Bibliography:
Baylis, J. and Smith, J. 2005. The Globalisation of World Politics. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chwaszcza, C. 2003. Secession and international law. In: Chatterjee, D. K. and Scheid, D. E. Ethics and Foreign Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 143-189.
Deng, F et al. 1996. Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Holzgrefe, J. L. 2003. The context for humanitarian intervention. In: Holzgrefe, J. L and Keohane, R. O. Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-53.
McLean, I. and McMillan, A. 2003. Concise Dictionary of Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parekh, B. 1997. Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention. International Politics Science Review, 18(1): 49-70.
Pugh, M. 1997. Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention. In: White, B. et al. Issues in World Politics. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 134-155.
Shaw, M. 1994. Global Society and International Relations. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Sutch, P. and Elias, J. 2007. ‘International Relations’. New York: Routledge.
