The international committee of the red cross defines humanitarian acts as those that prevent and alleviate human suffering’ – with the emphasis on a non-political and impartial definition of humanitarianism where all human beings irrespective of race, nationality or sex are included. Critics of this position argue that what is defined as human suffering varies from one historical epoch to another i.e. slavery. But is this just a simplistic view, and that in reality we are all capable of determining what is morally right and wrong?
Pluralist international society theorist argue five points for the illegitimacy of humanitarian intervention, based upon the norms of sovereignty and non-intervention and existing predominantly as a realist viewpoint.
Firstly that according to Realism states only pursue their national interest, thus any attempt of States to intervene on humanitarian grounds would not be because their primary reason was to do so, but more likely that they were urged to protect their national interests.
Secondly, Realists argue that states should not intervene for humanitarian reasons because they do not have the moral right to risk their Citizens lives in order to end suffering in another state, even if they would be successful. Those citizens who are under threat by their own civil authority are the exclusive responsibility of their state, and their state is entirely their own business – and they should be left to rectify the situation alone.
Thirdly, the problem of abuse. In the sense that legitimising forcible humanitarian intervention may lead to states espousing humanitarian motives as a pretext to cover the pursuit of their own national interests. Realists argue that the problem of abuse will always be a weapon that the strong will use against the weak.
As the fourth point, Realists argue that states will always apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively leading to an inconsistency in policy. Because states will be governed by what they judge to be in their national interest, they will do this only when they deem this to be at stake i.e. critics of NATO argue that it’s intervention in Kosovo could not have been driven by humanitarian motives because the organisation did nothing to address the equally terrible violation of human rights of the Turkish Kurds, the Chechens, or East Timorese.
Lastly, there is the problem of how to reach a consensus on what principles should underpin a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. International order, and hence the general well-being of all individuals, is better served by up-holding the principle of non-intervention than by allowing humanitarian intervention in the absence of a consensus on what considerations are to count as humanitarian.
Mainly – humanitarian intervention will always be based on the cultural preferences of the powerful.
Solidarist International Society Theory however argues that states have both a legal right and a moral obligation to intervene in exceptional cases that offend against minimum standards of humanity. The liberalist aspiration that state selectivity on humanitarian intervention can be changed is embodied in this theory.
Firstly they argue that the primary purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security, and that the promotion of human rights should rank alongside this mandate. As with the right to self-defence humanitarian intervention is argued to be a legitimate exception to the non-use of force principle.
Secondly, Counter-restrictionists argue that a customary legal right exists independently of the UN charter for unilateral humanitarian intervention. If not legally, they claim that humanitarian intervention is sometimes morally required.
So, reverting back to the original question of how the international community should respond to human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing, remains quite simply in a liberalist viewpoint ‘With intervention’. Either non-forcible in terms of states, international organisations and NGO’s in delivering humanitarian aid and facilitating third party conflict, or with force if necessary; and from a realist viewpoint, quite simply ‘without intervention’.
In terms of history, and the successes of humanitarian intervention, the results appear to have predominately positive outcomes but with ulterior motives and sometimes with little outcomes at all. The UN intervention In Somalia from May 1993 to February 1995 had humanitarian motives, but non- humanitarian outcomes when public disillusionment called for the US forces withdrawal. Whilst Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in Dec. 1978 and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda both had non-humanitarian motives based upon national self interest, witnessed humanitarian outcomes.
Pluralist international society theory is essential to understanding why the international community has proven so reluctant to legitimise humanitarian intervention.
The harsh reality is that whilst public opinion and politicians are nurtured by a media sense of compassion, states will be very selective in their response to human suffering. A striking feature of the post-cold war humanitarian intervention is that NO Western Government has yet chosen to risk its military personnel in defence of human rights where there was a high risk of casualties from the outset.
