Here is my lecture today from my Contemporary International Problems class by Professor Şaziye Burcu-Giray on Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Copyrights reserved by Florida International University (FIU) Fall 2013. HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by external actors for humanitarian purposes, usually against the wishes of the host government. Several humanitarian interventions took place since the end of the Cold War, including Liberia, Somalia, and Bosnia. Millions of civilians lost their lives in protracted conflicts. In what Mary Kaldor calls as “new wars”, civilian deaths are a direct war aim, not an un‐fortunate by‐ product. And sometimes the worst committers of crimes against civilians are states and their allies. This is a very major challenge to international security, if you remember our previous discussions of defining security. From the perspective of realists and liberals, security has been understood as the domain of states and principles of sovereignty and non‐interference have been accepted as main guarantors of national security. According to them, the best way to pursue security is through a society of sovereign states that enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over a particular piece of territory and rights to non‐interference and non‐ intervention. This idea is based on the assumption that states are the best guardians of their citizens’ security. However, this assumption is a problematic one and there are circumstances in which the security of individuals should be privileged over the security of states If we accept that there are circumstances in which the use of force for humanitarian purposes is legitimate, then we are confronted by a range of practical questions about the utility of force in promoting humanitarian objectives. Force is a relatively blunt humanitarian instrument and it is much better to prevent humanitarian catastrophes in the first place than to intervene and rebuild afterwards The case for humanitarian intervention The case for humanitarian intervention is based on the idea that external actors have a duty as well as a right to intervene to prevent genocide and mass atrocities. The rights that sovereigns enjoy are conditional on the fulfillment of the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. When states fail in their duties towards their citizens, they lose their sovereign right to non‐interference Political leaders who adopt this position argue that today’s globalized world is integrated that massive human rights violations in one part of the world have an effect on every other part. This social interconnectedness creates moral obligations. A further line of argument is to point to the fact that states have already agreed to certain minimum standards of behavior and that humanitarian intervention is not about imposing the will of a few Western states but about protecting and enforcing collective will of international society The most problematic aspect of humanitarian intervention is that any norm endorsing the use of force to protect individual rights would be abused by powerful states, therefore destabilizing international security. Also, there is no global consensus about the use of force to protect human rights. The case against humanitarian intervention Today, there are only few marginal states that are prepared to argue that humanitarian intervention is never warranted. Even China publicly acknowledges that massive humanitarian crises are a legitimate concern for international society and that the UN Security Council is entitled to take action in such cases. Therefore, contemporary opposition to humanitarian intervention focuses on the questions about who can legitimately authorize intervention, in what circumstances, and the effectiveness of using military force for humanitarian purposes Critics of humanitarian intervention argue that in a world characterized by radical disagreements about how societies should govern themselves, unfettered humanitarian intervention would create global disorder as states waged wars to protect and export their own cultural preferences Furthermore, a right of humanitarian intervention would open the door to potential abuse. Russia’s use of humanitarian arguments to justify its 2008 invasion of Georgia is one recent example of this abuse. It should also be noted that a majority of states continue to oppose humanitarian intervention as they see it as a dangerous affront to another core principle, the right to self‐ determination Finally, critics also claim that humanitarian intervention should be avoided because it does not word and is an inappropriate use of armed force Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Following the human tragedy in Rwanda and Srebrenica in 1990s, a new thinking about the nature of sovereignty took hold and this new thinking developed some old ideas about the sovereign’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Conceptualizing sovereignty as responsibility removed the validity of objections to international assistance and mediation based on the principle of non‐interference In 1999, UN Secretary‐General Annan insisted that “state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation”. He continued that “the state is now widely understood to be the servant of its people, not vice versa” The next step was the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty established by the Canadian government. The Commission aimed to develop a way of reconciling state sovereignty and human rights. Its report was premised on the notion that, when states are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens from grave harm, the principle of non‐interference yields to the responsibility to protect R2P is much more than just military intervention. Appropriate responses included non‐ violent means such as diplomacy, sanctions, and embargoes, and legal measures such as referring crimes to the International Criminal Court This report was received favorably by states including Canada, Britain, and Germany. The USA rejected it on the grounds that it would not commit itself to intervening in places where it had no national interests, and that it would not be bound to criteria that would constrain its right to decide when and where to use force. China and Russia argued that the UN was already equipped to deal with humanitarian crises through the Security Council These concerns were taken into consideration and at the 2005 World Summit, over 150 leaders adopted a declaration affirming the R2P. According to UN Secretary‐General Ban Ki‐moon, R2P rests on three pillars: The responsibility of the state to protect its own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity The international community’s commitment to assist states in meeting these obligations The international community’s responsibility to respond in a timely and decisive manner when a state is manifestly failing to protect its population #HumanitarianIntervention #R2P #Haiti #DominicanRepublic
Posted on: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:00:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015