The legitimacy in legal terms comes down to a debate between restrictionists and counter-restrictionists. Restrictionists argue that forcible intervention on humanitarian grounds is illegal as the only case intervention is legitimate is ‘the right of self defence’ as stated in article 51 of the UN charter. There is no provision for intervention on humanitarian grounds. However it is generally becoming more and more excepted (as was shown recently when after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush tried to justify the war on humanitarian grounds). While the calls for legitimising intervention on humanitarian grounds are becoming louder, the restrictionists have many arguments against this. One of the key voices in this field is Bhikhu Parekh, and his sentiments are backed up by realists. The argument is that states never actually intervene for humanitarian reasons, it may be a side effect, or just a veil, because they actually only intervene to pursue their own states self-interest. They further argue that states do not have the right to cause the bloodshed of their own people by getting involved in interventions in other countries. According to Parekh ‘Citizens are the responsibility of their state, and their state is entirely their own business.’ Essentially outside states have no moral obligation to intervene in another state, even if they could stop the situation at the time. A third argument is that if intervention was made legal in humanitarian cases, it would be abused in the same way as the self defence article is sometimes. As I mentioned before, they could simply use it as a veil when in reality they are invading in their own self-interest.
Counter-restrictionists however argue that in legal terms it is the right of states to intervene on humanitarian grounds. They believe that the humanitarian issues should be as important as international peace and security. This is because the UN charter commits states to protecting fundamental human rights and because there is a right of humanitarian intervention in customary international law. The idea of ‘customary international law’ was furthered by Arend and Beck who state ‘If over a period of time, states begin to act in a certain way and come to regard that behaviour as being required by law, a norm of customary international law has developed’. Essentially, even though the right to act is not enshrined in law, it becomes an acceptable course of action to take, i.e. Bush’s defence of the Iraq conflict. It is even argued that if the UN fails to act in such cases, then individual states gain the rights to do so. Indeed as the nineties progressed it became more generally accepted that the chapter on intervention in the UN charter could reasonably be stretched to make armed intervention in special cases, such as those or mass murder or genocide legitimate and justified. As Wheeler and Bellamy point out, this was best demonstrated by the fact that no member of the UN Security Council opposed intervention in Rwanda on grounds that it was a breach of sovereignty (instead no intervention was taken as none of the states were willing to incur the cost of armed conflict, which in some ways backs up the realist claim that states are never prepared to intervene on humanitarian grounds, only if they can in some way gain from it in some way). The view that intervention in these cases it legitimate and justified is backed up by solidarism, however they take the position even further. While they believe that states have the right to intervene, they also believe that it is in fact their moral duty to intervene is severe situations, such as genocide. This view is backed up by some lawyers who believe that whatever the precise legality of the situation, the morality overrides it, in such situations where the only way to bring an end to a situation is with intervention. In such cases, and also when answering this particular question, the moral question is far bigger than the actual legality. As I mentioned one of the main restrictionist arguments against having a law where a state can intervene is that it would be abused, but this is probably in fact the main reason it does not exist. It would also be very difficult to give a precise definition of what was required to intervene. As Wheeler and Bellamy put it ‘How many people have to die, or be in imminent peril before the use of force is justified?’
So let’s focus on the question in hand, can military intervention ever be justified? In my personal opinion, I believe in many situations it can be. Every country does and should have the right to act in self defence. This appears to me to be fairly self-evident. If the security of a state is under genuine threat, then to not allow it to take any action would be ridiculous, so in the situation of self defence, there is no doubt in my mind that any state is entirely justified in intervening. However as mentioned the issue of intervention for other reasons is more complex. I believe it comes down to morals. Although the obvious problem is that morals are very subjective. However in the world there is clearly a divide in terms of development in different countries, and the countries where these terrible acts tend to take place are generally less developed. I would back up the solidarism view. We are lucky that we live in developed countries where terrible atrocities such as genocide would not happen. The idea of such a thing taking place in a country such as the USA, Germany, France, England and so on is difficult to even contemplate. Many of the world’s citizens are not so lucky. We should not turn out backs to terrible events like genocide, especially in a world where globalisation is making places that although geographically are a long way, in reality seem far closer. If we are living in a ‘global village’, should we not protect our own? I do believe that it is the moral obligation of stable countries such as ours, to take military intervention to protect human beings that are suffering at the hands of warped regimes intent on killing. In situations of humanitarian crisis I believe military intervention again is entirely justifiable. This view is echoed by the fact that since the end of the Cold War, it has been Western states that have taken the lead in advancing armed humanitarian intervention throughout the world. I too believe that once a state becomes tyrannical towards its citizens, it loses its rights to state sovereignty. First and foremost it is responsibility of any state to protect its citizens, and if this basic right is not adhered to, then it loses its right to sovereignty and then ‘the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect’ (ICISS 2001).
Although every situation is different, and each case has to be very closely judged on its own merits to stop abuse, intervention can be justified if overall it is contributing to a greater good for human beings. However, as was the case in Rwanda it is no longer necessarily a question of whether states are justified in intervening in other states affairs, but whether they are willing to risk seeing their own countrymen die to save the lives of others in murderous states, and once again it is the solidarist’s question that comes into play; should states be morally obliged to intervene?
Bibliography;
Key concepts in politics – Andrew Haywood
Politics – Andrew Haywood
The Globalization of world politics – Baylis and Smith
