Humanitarian Intervention Case

Introduction

This essay researches the changing idea of sovereignty in the context of humanitarian intervention (HI) and how HI brought about a normative change in the way states view human right violations, and, while substantially challenging the status of the sovereign state, states remain very powerful actors. Humanitarian intervention questions the traditional International Relations (IR) theories over the principle of state sovereignty because it involves an illegal invasion of state sovereign territories, a clear violation of the non-intervention rule. Indeed, accommodating HI may be difficult, if not impossible, because a state in a position to intervene is not only committing an illegal act under current international law, it may also face international condemnation, if the HI goes wrong. Furthermore HI is controversial for the United Nations (UN) representative body, the Security Council, charged with authorising the use of force. HI has escalated tensions between member states over the use of military force to intervene in a sovereign territory where there is considered to be a humanitarian crisis, what Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley describe as, "the violent phenomenon of rights protection"

Fundamental principles of statehood are enshrined in the United Nations Charter , principles of sovereignty, non-intervention and non-use of force all of which clash with the very meaning of and legality of HI. Nevertheless, does this mean that states are free to do as they wish without interference? Or does it mean that sovereignty is a licence to massacre their citizens with impunity? Certainly the ex-Secretary General Kofi Annan did not think so. He argued before the General Assembly of the UN in 1998 that too little too late was being done by the international community to protect citizens against aggression. He claimed where forceful intervention does become necessary, the Security Council, must be able to rise to the challenge. Annan stated that "the choice must not be between council unity and inaction in the face of genocide--as in the case of Rwanda--and council division". Annan also cautioned against unilateral HI as it would establish a dangerous precedent because the Security Council did not sanction it and there were few interventionist's rules and guidelines.

Four major problems are at the core of use of force for humanitarian purposes, first of all protecting the primacy of state sovereignty over the rights of individuals, secondly the inadequacy of the UN Security Council to carry out its role effectively because of political polarization and paralysis, thirdly the historical record of humanitarian interventions cannot be considered a success and last, historical ethnicity, religious and cultural complexities cause in part by the interventionists. In amongst these issues is the ongoing debate between the various traditions of theoretical International