Lesson 3 Flashcards
What is humanitarian intervention in international law?
Armed intervention by a state without UN Security Council authorization, usually justified on moral or humanitarian grounds.
How does humanitarian intervention conflict with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter?
Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against another state’s sovereignty unless authorized by the UN Security Council or justified by self-defense (Article 51).
Why was NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo controversial?
It was ruled unlawful under international law because it lacked UN Security Council approval, but some argued it was morally legitimate due to humanitarian concerns.
UK Goverment’s conditions for humanitarian intervention
- Convincing Evidence of Extreme Humanitarian Distress – There must be widely accepted evidence of large-scale humanitarian suffering requiring urgent relief.
- No Practicable Alternative – It must be objectively clear that no other options (diplomacy, sanctions, etc.) can save lives.
- Necessary & Proportionate Use of Force– The military action must be strictly limited to humanitarian relief, using only the minimum force necessary.
How did the UK government apply the conditions for humanitarian intervention to the Syrian crisis in 2013?
- Mass Humanitarian Crisis – Over 100,000 deaths and 2 million refugees due to Syrian government actions. The chemical weapon attack on August 21, 2013, was deemed a war crime.
- No Diplomatic Alternative – Efforts to resolve the conflict and prevent further chemical attacks through the UN Security Council were blocked.
- Necessary & Proportionate Force – Targeted military strikes were deemed essential to deter and disrupt further chemical weapon use, preventing a humanitarian catastrophe.
How does the UK government differentiate between Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention?
- R2P (Responsibility to Protect) – A political commitment from the 2005 World Summit Outcome, stating that states must protect their populations from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. If a state fails, the international community may act.
- Humanitarian Intervention – A legal doctrine justifying military intervention without UN Security Council approval to prevent humanitarian disasters.
Key Difference: R2P does not create a new legal right to intervene unilaterally, whereas humanitarian intervention involves states acting without UNSC approval.
R2P as a Response to Failure
The Responsibility to Protect emerged after NATO’s humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and Rwanda
How did the 2018 Syria airstrikes impact international law on humanitarian intervention?
Collective Action – The U.S., UK, and France acted together, reducing concerns that the strikes were a pretext for regime change or territorial gain.
Focus on Chemical Weapons – The strikes targeted Syrian chemical weapons facilities, reinforcing the jus cogens norm against chemical weapons (banned since 1925).
Humanitarian Justification – The strikes can be viewed as a form of humanitarian intervention. The UK explicitly relied on the theory of “humanitarian intervention” in the context of preventing the use of chemical weapons to justify the April 2018 airstrikes.
What is the Uniting for Peace resolution, and when can the UN General Assembly act?
When Can the General Assembly Act? – If the Security Council is deadlocked due to a veto, the General Assembly can step in, particularly in cases of threats to peace, breaches of peace, or aggression.
What Can It Do? – The Assembly can recommend collective measures, including armed force, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Limitations:
* Non-Binding – Member states choose whether to follow the recommendations.
* Not a Substitute for the Security Council – The General Assembly cannot authorize enforcement action like the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
How did NATO’s intervention in Libya (2011) test the limits of the UN mandate?
Protection vs. Regime Change – NATO’s actions to protect civilians were legal under UNSC Resolution 1973, but aiding rebels and contributing to Qaddafi’s overthrow exceeded the mandate and constituted an illegal use of force.
Limits of the UN Mandate – The resolution only authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in certain areas (e.g., Benghazi), not nationwide intervention or regime change.
Consequences for R2P – NATO’s perceived overreach may undermine the legitimacy of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, making future interventions more controversial.
Ulfstein
What is Responsibility While Protecting (RWP) and how does it refine the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
Balance Between Action & Restraint – While the international community has a Responsibility to Protect (R2P), it must also act responsibly when using force due to Brazil.
Key Principles of RWP:
Diplomacy
**Prioritize Prevention **– Exhaust peaceful solutions before resorting to military action.
Authorization SC – Use of force must be approved by the UNSC.
Proportionate – Military action should be proportionate, avoiding excessive violence or instability.
Do No More Harm – Intervention should not cause greater harm than the crisis it aims to prevent.
D-PAD, acronym.
Brazil
What is Bellamy’s argument on the use of force under Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Force as a Necessary Option – While diplomacy and sanctions are preferred, military force may be required when dealing with determined perpetrators of mass atrocities.
Risk of Inaction – If force is excluded from R2P’s measures, it may embolden perpetrators, signaling that the international community will not intervene even in extreme cases.
Balance Between Force & Prevention – R2P should focus on prevention first, but force must remain an option when other efforts fail to stop genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing.
Bellamy
What are the key legal and practical considerations for regional organizations conducting military interventions?
Regional Focus – Organizations like the African Union (AU) are meant to handle regional disputes, but NATO’s global role raises legal concerns.
🔹 UN Security Council (UNSC) Authorization –
✔ Required for enforcement actions under Article 53(1) of the UN Charter.
✔ Exceptions: Self-defense or host state consent.
✔ Debate exists over whether regional bodies can intervene in human rights violations without UNSC approval.
🔹 African Union’s Intervention Approach –
✔ AU’s Constitutive Act allows intervention for grave crimes without mentioning the UNSC.
✔ Later protocols recognize the UNSC’s role in authorizing force.
🔹 Challenges for AU Interventions –
✔ The AU has led missions in Burundi, Sudan, Somalia, and Comoros.
✔ Depends on external support (military, financial, logistical) for large-scale operations.Regional Focus – Organizations like the African Union (AU) are meant to handle regional disputes, but NATO’s global role raises legal concerns.
🔹 UN Security Council (UNSC) Authorization –
✔ Required for enforcement actions under Article 53(1) of the UN Charter.
✔ Exceptions: Self-defense or host state consent.
✔ Debate exists over whether regional bodies can intervene in human rights violations without UNSC approval.
🔹 African Union’s Intervention Approach –
✔ AU’s Constitutive Act allows intervention for grave crimes without mentioning the UNSC.
✔ Later protocols recognize the UNSC’s role in authorizing force.
🔹 Challenges for AU Interventions –
✔ The AU has led missions in Burundi, Sudan, Somalia, and Comoros.
✔ Depends on external support (military, financial, logistical) for large-scale operations.
Erika De Wet
How did the African Union (AU) use coercive diplomacy in Burundi, and what were the legal challenges?
The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) threatened to deploy a 5,000-strong force (MAPROBU) to protect civilians, giving the Burundian government 96 hours to consent.
The intervention raised legal concerns because deploying MAPROBU without Burundi’s approval conflicted with international law. While Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act allows the AU to intervene in cases of grave crimes, this conflicts with Article 53 of the UN Charter, which requires UN Security Council (UNSC) authorization for military enforcement actions.
The PSC sought UNSC approval under Chapter VII, recognizing that the AU usually needs UNSC authorization for interventions beyond self-defense.
There were also deployment challenges. Possible forces included the Eastern Africa Standby Force (EASF), the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), or a coalition of willing states. Deploying MAPROBU without Burundi’s consent could have been seen as an act of aggression, risking the AU’s legitimacy. Even with consent, military action alone might not have resolved Burundi’s political crisis.
Paul Williams
How did ECOWAS prevent mass violence in The Gambia following the 2016 presidential election?
1️⃣ Diplomatic & Military Pressure – ECOWAS intervened diplomatically and threatened military action to force Yahya Jammeh to step down after he refused to accept his election defeat.
2️⃣ Preventing Violence – The threat of force alone was enough to ensure a peaceful transition, avoiding widespread violence without firing a single shot.
3️⃣ Upholding R2P – ECOWAS demonstrated how regional organizations, with UN coordination, can enforce the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by intervening before a crisis escalates.
4️⃣ Addressing Human Rights Issues – Jammeh’s rule was marked by ethnic, religious, and sexual orientation-based divisions and human rights violations, highlighting the need for national reconciliation efforts after his removal.
Cold war humanitarian interventions
India into East Pakistan (1971), Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda (1979)
And the Vietnamese intervention.
