Issues of International Institutions Flashcards
tension between humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty
one of the key tensions in the international system concerns intervention at times of humanitarian disaster
on one hand, sovereign states have rights including the principle that other states should not intervene in their affairs
but on the other hand, many states feel a moral obligation to intervene if a catastrophe is taking place in another state
debates over humanitarian intervention
there are many debates over whether the world should stand by when innocent men, women and children are facing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes or intervene and undermine the principle of state sovereignty
there have been many cases where the international community stood by and did nothing as human rights were ignored and violated – e.g. Auschwitz was the largest Nazi concentration camp where more than 1 million people were murdered
what has happened since the Holocaust?
since the Holocaust ended, there has been a growing view that the international community should act if crimes against humanity are taking place in another country but using force in such situations raises both moral and legal questions
moral and legal issues concerning humanitarian intervention
forcible humanitarian intervention assumes that there are universal moral absolutes that unite the world, yet Western interventions in order to establish these values in other countries could equally be seen as a form of cultural imperialism
states that intervene can be seen as using humanitarian grounds as an excuse to increase their power and further their own interests, or even as a pretext for the control or annexation of another state – e.g. the Iraq War
humanitarian intervention is not guaranteed to make the situation any better on the ground, the use of force may actually lead to the loss of more life as war escalates
forcible intervention goes against the principles of state sovereignty by interfering in the internal affairs of another state and if the international community increasingly allows humanitarian intervention, this is clearly a challenge to state sovereignty
humanitarian intervention can be seen as contravening just war theory, as it is not a last resort and could even be another way of starting a war and triggering further conflict
CASE STUDY: Libya
one particularly problematic intervention was Western intervention in the Libyan civil conflict in 2011
this was ostensibly made on humanitarian grounds, to stop the bombing of innocent people, but this was soon claimed to be a cover for the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime
however, Gaddafi’s overthrow only led to more chaos and killing in Libya, especially since after his overthrow, the country descended into anarchy which allowed ISIL to gain a strong foothold
what is the just war theory?
this theory explains when wars should be fought, how wars should be fought and on what grounds they should be started
the basic idea is that war should always be a last resort
it is an attempt by philosophers and thinkers to determine whether war is justifiable and permissible
what are the three main focuses of the just war theory?
jus ad bellum – dealing with when it is right to go to war
jus in bello – dealing with the conduct of war
jus post bellum, which concentrates on the situation after the war has ended
criteria that must be met under the just war theory in order for a war to be considered just, acceptable and necessary: JUST CAUSE, COMPARATIVE JUSTICE + COMPETENT AUTHORITY
just cause – the reason for going to war needs to be just, innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life (1993 US Catholic Conference: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil”)
comparative justice – the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other
competent authority – only duly constituted public authorities may wage war, dictatorships (e.g. Hitler’s Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion
criteria that must be met under the just war theory in order for a war to be considered just, acceptable and necessary: RIGHT INTENTION, PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS, LAST RESORT + PROPORTIONALITY
right intention – correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not
probability of success – arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success, there must be a reasonable chance of success
last resort – force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical
proportionality – anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms
impact of humanitarian intervention on state sovereignty
the right of a state to determine its own policies is at the core of what it is to be a state as well as a defining feature of state sovereignty
nothing is more controversial within a state, especially a democratic state, than foreign interference in the affairs of another state
there is often a strong feeling that countries should ‘keep their noses’ out of others’ affairs, whether they are foreign politicians, judges or the media
it is therefore remarkable that states that sign up to global governance organisations do achieve a greater good
however, there are always pressures on states to resist rulings from courts like the ECHR that some see as removing state sovereignty
rise and growth of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s
the end of WW2 saw the most immediate catalyst for human rights protection, but the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s is what made practical help possible
the demise of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia as a global power meant that the UNSC in particular was able to sanction humanitarian intervention missions
the end of the Cold War also seemed to issue a new era of liberal thinking that justified such protection of human rights
failures of UN interventions include Srebrenica in 1995, Rwanda in 1994 and Somalia in 1995
however, intervention in Sierra Leone between 1999 and 2005, where a peace deal was successfully implemented to end a civil war and tends of thousands of fighters were disarmed, was widely deemed to be one of the most successful humanitarian interventions of the UN
reasons for selective interventionism
while the West may see itself as upholding liberal, humanitarian values, it may be the case that it cannot intervene to help people as much as it would like
there are sometimes practical difficulties when launching humanitarian interventions against states
for example, the Syrian Civil War (2011 –) demonstrates that it is very difficult for Western military forces to be directly involved in a region such as the Middle East, there has not been UNSC intervention because the P5 support different sides of the conflict and so cannot agree of appropriate action to take
there are often domestic political pressures resisting intervention
for instance, many argue that troops from one nation should not fight and die for people in another country. This particular argument was often used to argue against NATO involvement in Afghanistan in recent years
the argument that humanitarian intervention is merely a form of neo-colonialism
it can be argued that interventionism is merely another form of neo-colonialism and a way that Western states can impose their values onto others
humanitarian intervention may be a façade behind which Western states invade and exploit other countries
for example, some felt that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out just so the USA could gain access to Iraqi oil, claims that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction formed the legal basis for the invasion and the argument that overthrowing Saddam Hussein because he was a bad person who had violated the human rights of his citizens formed the moral basis, many argue that this was merely a façade
the argument that humanitarian intervention destabilises regions and exacerbates conflicts rather than solving them
the danger of intervention is that the human rights abuses are not stopped
indeed the situation may actually be further destabilised due to intervention
this occurred following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011 by NATO backed forces
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
one attempt to find a middle path between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention has been the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has been in place since 2005
the idea behind R2P is that part of a state’s sovereignty is the responsibility to protect its own citizens
so if a state fails to uphold this responsibility then the responsibility to protect falls on the international community, eventually allowing for humanitarian intervention through force
this emphasises that state sovereignty comes with responsibilities
In cases where there is a need for the international community to intervene in accordance with the responsibility to protect any such involvement should not take place without a UN mandate to confer legitimacy
The recent conflict in Libya where Libyan rebels sought to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi stands out as the most striking and your Matic use of the responsibility to protect concept
Force should only be used as a last resort if use of peaceful means proves in adequate in order to prevent atrocities from taking place prior to considering the use of force Against a country that fails to protect its population capacity building mediation and sanctions should all be considered
y
If an international standard of human rights is going to exist all states would need to be held equally accountable before the law and if international law is to be legitimate it must treat Allstate the same
This principle is undermined because often the more powerful states ignore international law if it is against the national interest
For examples America’s use of waterboarding the indefinite internment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay And the rendition of terror suspects to states such as Pakistan where they could be more discreetly tortured
examples of alleged Western double standards
the USA during the Cold War
the 1974 Chilean military coup
alleged Western double standards: THE USA DURING THE COLD WAR
during the Cold War, the USA was heavily criticised for preaching democracy and human rights but overthrowing democratically elected governments and instead supporting military regimes that used torture
the USA was particularly fearful of communist expansion in its ‘backyard’ – Central and South America – it saw this area as its sphere of influence and was not willing to tolerate any attempts by communists to gain a foothold there
as a result, the USA was willing to tolerate and support military dictatorships that were also anti-communist in nature
for instance, it supported the Somoza family dynasty in Nicaragua and attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro numerous times in Cuba
it justified its approach by arguing that the USSR was a greater threat to the USA and Soviet expansionism needed to be stopped
alleged Western double standards: 1973 CHILEAN MILITARY COUP
another example of such double standards can be seen in the military coup in Chile in 1973
following an extended period of social unrest and political tension between the opposition-controlled Congress of Chile and the socialist President Salvador Allende, Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police
the Popular Unity government was overthrown and a military junta was established that suspended all political activity in Chile and repressed left-wing movements
Allende’s appointed army chief, Augusto Pinochet, rose to supreme power within a year of the coup, formally assuming power in late-1974
the United States government, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup (e.g. through economic warfare ordered by President Nixon), promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power
