Session 3 Flashcards
Why is The Gambia’s intervention not considered a general precedent for pro-democratic interventions?
Because the intervention was legally justified through invitation rather than establishing a broad right to intervene for democracy.
What does the Gambia case reveal about the limitations of the UN’s collective security system?
The Security Council was unwilling to authorize force directly, reflecting its reluctance to treat internal democratic crises as threats to international peace.
What unresolved legal grey areas remain after the Gambian intervention (2017)?
The legal implications of military action before an official request for intervention, and whether democratic legitimacy alone can justify intervention.
Barrow was not allowed to step up after election sun. ECOWAS, AU and UN recognized him as legitimate. R2P elements but not direct case.
- Sovereignty VS regional enforcement.? Overstepping use of force.
- no legal framework to process Jammehs appeal
- Who had rights to invite them?
What event triggered the constitutional crisis in The Gambia in 2017?
Refusal of sitting president (Jammeh) to step down for Barrow
What international organizations intervened in the Gambian crisis?
Militarily: Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),
Politically and diplomatically: the African Union (AU), and the United Nations (UN).
- Pressure on Jammeh, threatened sanctions
What was ‘Operation Restore Democracy’ in The Gambia?
A military intervention by ECOWAS forces, led by Senegal, to enforce the transfer of power to Adama Barrow.
What was the main legal concern regarding ECOWAS’s intervention in The Gambia?
Whether the intervention violated the prohibition on the use of force under international law.
- Was invited by president Barrow (thereby circumventing 2(4)/Chapter VII) while in exile - Legitimate?
- UNSC expressed support for ECOWAS’ efforts but didn’t allow direct use of force.
- ECOWAS regional security mandate allowing interventions regarding restoration of democracy.
- widely accepted in practice and signals growing regional enforcement even if UN Charter ambiguous.
Did UN Security Council Resolution 2337 authorize the use of force in The Gambia?
No, it did not provide explicit authorization for military intervention.
Why was the phrase “all necessary measures” significant in the AU and ECOWAS resolutions?
It mirrored the typical language used by the UN Security Council when authorizing the use of force, but without explicit UN backing.
- Was used in context of “ensuring election results”
What legal principle did ECOWAS rely on to justify its intervention?
Intervention by invitation.
Who invited ECOWAS to intervene in The Gambia?
Adama Barrow, after being sworn in as president in the Gambian embassy in Senegal.
What is ‘intervention by invitation’ in international law?
A state may consent to foreign military intervention within its territory, making the use of force lawful under international law.
Why was Barrow’s ability to invite foreign intervention questioned?
He was not yet in effective control of The Gambia, raising doubts about his authority to give consent.
How does the Gambian case compare to previous pro-democratic interventions like Haiti (1994) and Sierra Leone (1997)?
Unlike these cases, the Gambian intervention was not based on a coup but on a refusal to transfer power.
Has the UN Security Council historically recognized a general right to pro-democratic intervention?
No, state practice does not support a broad right to intervene militarily for democracy promotion.
How does the concept of ‘effective control’ relate to Barrow’s legitimacy as president?
Traditional international law considers effective control over a territory as a key factor in determining a government’s legitimacy.
What role did the UN Security Council play in legitimizing Barrow’s invitation for intervention?
By recognizing him as the legitimate president, the Security Council indirectly strengthened the legal basis for ECOWAS’s intervention.
What does the Gambian case suggest about the evolving role of the UN Security Council in legitimizing interventions?
The Council can indirectly support interventions by recognizing the legitimacy of one party in a disputed political transition.
Does the Gambian case establish a precedent for future pro-democratic interventions?
No, it remains a unique case, as the intervention was justified through Barrow’s invitation rather than a broader right to pro-democratic intervention.
What is humanitarian intervention?
Answer: Intervention in a state to prevent or end a humanitarian crisis, often involving armed force
Which article in the UN Charter addresses the use of force?
Article 2(4), generally prohibiting the threat or use of force, with exceptions for self-defense or Security Council authorized actions
What is the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine?
The idea that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in cases of mass atrocities
Name an example of a post-Cold War humanitarian intervention
NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in the late 1999.
- Aimed at halting HR abuses between Yugoslav and Kosovo forces.
- Bimbing campaign of 78 days.
- No UNSC approval nor condemnation
- Precedent-setting intervention.
- Highlighted limitations of UN decision-making process.
What is a criticism of humanitarian interventions without Security Council authorization?
They can be viewed as violations of sovereignty and international law
Which country was a focus of discussion regarding humanitarian intervention due to the use of chemical weapons?
Syria
What is a central question regarding states intervening in other states to protect human rights?
Whether it is permissible to intervene when a state fails to protect its own citizens
What is a potential consequence of humanitarian interventions not authorized by the UN?
It could potentially undermine the UN Charter and the principle of non-intervention
When did ECOWAS intervene in Liberia?
August 24, 1990
What was Russia’s argument regarding the Kosovo operation?
Russia stated that the operation was a flagrant violation of the UN Charter
What is Harold Koh’s main argument regarding humanitarian intervention in Syria?
IL has evolved to permit limited humanitarian intervention without UN Security Council (UNSC) approval when mass atrocities occur and the UNSC is deadlocked.
Examples: Kosovo 1999.
Iraq/Syria 2014
Syria 2017,2018 chemical.
Libya 2011 (overstep of mandate argued)
Which traditional legal principle does Koh challenge?
The strict interpretation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with UNSC authorization.
Which past intervention does Koh cite as a precedent for humanitarian intervention?
The Kosovo intervention (1999) by NATO, which occurred without explicit UNSC approval but was later internationally accepted.
What is the main criticism of Koh’s argument?
That allowing unilateral humanitarian intervention could be abused by powerful states, undermining the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.
Why does Koh believe Syria represents a “lawmaking moment” for humanitarian intervention?
Because the UNSC’s failure to act due to Russia’s veto highlights the need to clarify the legality of humanitarian intervention under international law.
How does Koh justify breaking the traditional “per se illegal” rule on the use of force?
He argues that strict adherence to sovereignty and UNSC vetoes allows mass atrocities to continue unchecked, contradicting the UN’s purpose of protecting human rights.
What does Koh suggest about post-facto approval for interventions?
That a UNSC resolution after the fact (as in Kosovo) could retroactively legitimize the intervention.
What prompted the April 14, 2018, airstrikes on Syria?
The U.S., UK, and France launched airstrikes in response to Assad’s chemical weapon attacks, aiming to prevent further use.
Why was the UN Security Council (UNSC) unable to act on Syria?
Russia repeatedly vetoed resolutions condemning Syria’s use of chemical weapons, blocking UNSC action.
How did the 2018 airstrikes differ from the 2017 strikes?
The 2017 U.S. strike was unilateral, while the 2018 strike was multilateral, involving the U.S., UK, and France and explicitly invoking humanitarian intervention.
What are the three traditional justifications for the use of force in international law?
1) Self-defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter).
2) UN Security Council authorization (Chapter VII).
3) Consent of the host state.
What legal justification did the UK provide for the airstrikes?
The UK explicitly invoked humanitarian intervention, arguing that force was necessary to prevent further chemical attacks and humanitarian suffering.
What three conditions did the UK outline for lawful humanitarian intervention?
1) Extreme humanitarian distress requiring urgent relief.
2) No practicable alternative.
3) Use of force must be necessary, proportionate, and time-limited.
How did the 2018 airstrikes compare to NATO’s Kosovo intervention (1999)?
Unlike Kosovo, where NATO avoided a legal justification, the UK provided a clear legal rationale for humanitarian intervention in Syria.
Why does Scharf argue the 2018 Syria airstrikes were a Grotian Moment?
The airstrikes crystallized an emerging norm allowing humanitarian intervention without UNSC authorization when mass atrocities occur.
How did the international community react to the 2018 airstrikes?
Over 70 states supported the strikes, while Russia, Syria, and Iran opposed them, indicating growing state acceptance of humanitarian intervention.
What does Scharf suggest about the future of humanitarian intervention?
The 2018 airstrikes reinforced a shifting legal norm, though humanitarian intervention without UNSC approval remains contested.
How might this precedent shape future interventions?
It could lead to greater acceptance of humanitarian intervention when the UNSC is blocked, similar to how Kosovo shaped NATO’s intervention doctrine.
What is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
R2P is a global norm that obligates states to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state fails to do so, the international community has a responsibility to intervene through peaceful means and, as a last resort, through collective force authorized by the UN Security Council.
How does R2P differ from humanitarian intervention?
R2P is a broader framework emphasizing prevention, collective responsibility, and multilateralism, whereas humanitarian intervention often refers to military action without necessarily requiring international authorization.
What are the three pillars of R2P?
The state’s primary responsibility to protect its population,
The international community’s responsibility to assist states in fulfilling this duty,
The international community’s obligation to intervene if a state fails to protect its population.
What historical events influenced the development of R2P?
The failures to prevent genocide in Rwanda (1994) and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (1999) highlighted the need for a new international approach to preventing mass atrocities.
Why is humanitarian intervention controversial?
It can be seen as violating state sovereignty, may be used selectively based on political interests, and risks being misused for strategic or geopolitical gains.
What is the role of the UN Security Council in humanitarian intervention?
The Security Council has the authority to approve military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, making interventions legally and politically legitimate.
What is the principle of state sovereignty, and how does it relate to humanitarian intervention?
State sovereignty is the principle that states have full control over their internal affairs. Humanitarian intervention challenges this by justifying external interference when states fail to protect their populations.
What are some examples of humanitarian interventions in recent history?
NATO’s intervention in Kosovo (1999), the UN-authorized mission in East Timor (1999), and the NATO-led intervention in Libya (2011).
Why do some states, like China and Russia, oppose humanitarian intervention?
They emphasize non-interference, fear the precedent it sets for future interventions, and worry about its misuse for regime change or geopolitical gain.
How does the concept of ‘humanitarian necessity’ justify intervention?
It argues that when mass atrocities are imminent, immediate action is morally required, even if formal international approval is lacking.
What are some criticisms of R2P?
It is inconsistently applied, often influenced by the interests of powerful states, and can be used as a pretext for military intervention.
What role does the European Union play in humanitarian intervention?
The EU provides humanitarian aid and supports international peacekeeping efforts, such as its €1.9 billion aid package for crises in Venezuela, Haiti, and Sudan in 2025.
How has the concept of humanitarian intervention evolved over time?
It has roots in just war theory, developed through customary international law, and has been institutionalized in R2P to emphasize prevention and multilateralism.
What are some non-military alternatives to humanitarian intervention?
Diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and capacity-building efforts within states.
How does humanitarian intervention relate to international security?
It intersects with global security by addressing mass atrocities, preventing state collapse, and influencing geopolitical stability.
Under what authority did the African Union propose the deployment of MAPROBU?
The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) cited Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act, which allows intervention in cases of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
- proposed Burundi mission 2016-2017
- enforcement of AU’s own ability to R2P.
- Inabulity to deploy was due to lack of international backing and Burundi government rejection and internal african fears of precedent.
What precedent did the AU cite for seeking UN Security Council authorization for military force?
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), which authorized intervention in Libya to protect civilians.
What were the main legal challenges to deploying MAPROBU without Burundi’s consent?
It would contradict Article 53 of the UN Charter, which requires Security Council authorization for enforcement actions not related to self-defense.
What is the purpose of the Uniting for Peace resolution?
Answer: It allows the UN General Assembly (GA) to make recommendations for collective action when the Security Council (SC) is blocked due to a veto by a permanent member.
Under what conditions can the General Assembly invoke Uniting for Peace?
Answer: The Security Council must have failed to act due to a veto, and the situation must involve a threat to peace, breach of peace, or an act of aggression.
Are resolutions under Uniting for Peace legally binding?
Answer: No, they are only recommendations and do not impose legal obligations on states, unlike Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Can the General Assembly use Uniting for Peace to authorize military force?
Answer: The Assembly can recommend the use of force only in cases of a breach of peace or act of aggression, not for general threats to peace.
How has the use of Uniting for Peace evolved over time?
Answer: Initially used to counter Soviet vetoes, it has since been used for peacekeeping operations, voluntary sanctions, and advisory opinions, but not as a legal basis for military action.
Why is Uniting for Peace less relevant today?
Answer: The General Assembly now meets continuously, making emergency special sessions unnecessary, and it already has broad authority to issue recommendations without invoking the resolution.
What role did Uniting for Peace play in the Korean War?
Answer: It was used in 1950 to recommend support for South Korea after the Soviet Union vetoed Security Council action, leading to collective self-defense efforts by UN member states.
- Legitimized continued UN military action in Korea.
Does Uniting for Peace provide a legal basis for humanitarian intervention?
Answer: No, the resolution does not override Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force unless authorized by the Security Council or justified by self-defense.
How does Uniting for Peace relate to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
Answer: While R2P emphasizes preventing mass atrocities, Uniting for Peace does not provide a legal framework for humanitarian intervention or military enforcement without Security Council approval.
What are the main criticisms of using Uniting for Peace for military action?
Answer: Critics argue that recommending force outside of self-defense violates the UN Charter, could set dangerous precedents, and risks being used for political rather than humanitarian purposes.
What are the limitations of Uniting for Peace in authorizing the use of force?
Answer: The General Assembly can only recommend force in cases of a breach of peace or an act of aggression, but such recommendations are not legally binding and do not override the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4).
How has the relevance of Uniting for Peace changed over time?
Answer: It has become less necessary because the General Assembly now meets continuously, and it already has broad authority to discuss and make recommendations on international peace and security without invoking the resolution.
Can the General Assembly recommend humanitarian intervention under Uniting for Peace?
Can recommend action but it is not legally binding and does not have authority of Chapter VII.
What are alternative actions the General Assembly can take under Uniting for Peace?
Answer: Instead of recommending military action, the General Assembly can push voluntary sanctions, recommend and fund peacekeeping operations, request advisory opinions from the ICJ, and call for diplomatic resolutions to conflicts.
What was the legal basis for NATO’s intervention in Libya?
Answer: NATO’s intervention was based on UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya.
How did NATO exceed its mandate under Libya Resolution 1973?
NATO was authorized to protect civilians,
- it went beyond the mandate by supporting rebel forces, targeting Qaddafi’s command centers, and facilitating regime change, violating Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
How did NATO’s actions in Libya affect the credibility of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
Answer: NATO’s mission creep in Libya damaged trust in R2P, making future humanitarian interventions harder to justify. BRICS countries became more skeptical, leading to vetoes on Syria-related resolutions in the Security Council.
What was the international reaction to NATO’s intervention in Libya?
Answer: BRICS countries, particularly Russia and China, criticized NATO for exceeding its mandate and later blocked Security Council resolutions on Syria, fearing similar Western-led regime change.
What is the “Responsibility While Protecting” (RwP) proposal, and why was it introduced?
Answer: Brazil proposed RwP as a response to NATO’s actions in Libya. It suggests stricter oversight of UN military mandates to prevent overreach and ensure interventions remain within humanitarian objectives rather than regime change.
How has the perception of military intervention under R2P changed over time?
Answer: Initially, R2P included a commitment to use force if necessary to protect populations, but skepticism has grown due to the “war on terror” and NATO’s intervention in Libya, leading to a shift towards non-military measures such as diplomacy and prevention.
Why does Bellamy argue that non-military approaches are often insufficient?
Answer: He points to historical cases like Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Syria, where peacekeeping, sanctions, and diplomacy failed to prevent mass atrocities. Without the credible threat of force, perpetrators often continue committing atrocities without fear of consequences.
What are the risks of removing force from R2P’s toolkit?
Answer: Without military intervention as an option, perpetrators are emboldened, knowing the international community will not act decisively. This could lead to more atrocities, as seen in Syria, Myanmar, and Darfur.
What does Bellamy argue about the moral and practical dilemmas of humanitarian intervention?
Answer: While acknowledging that military intervention is costly, dangerous, and can cause civilian casualties, Bellamy argues that avoiding intervention entirely shifts the burden to the victims, leaving them unprotected against mass atrocities.
What is Bellamy’s main conclusion about the role of force in R2P?
Answer: He argues that R2P must reintegrate military intervention as an option when peaceful measures fail. While intervention should be carefully constrained, completely rejecting the use of force makes R2P ineffective in stopping atrocities.
What does Article 4(h) of the African Union’s Constitutive Act allow?
Answer: It allows the AU to intervene in member states to prevent genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, even without the consent of the affected state.
How does the AU’s intervention mandate conflict with the UN Charter?
Answer: Article 53(1) of the UN Charter states that regional organisations cannot conduct military enforcement actions without UN Security Council (UNSC) authorization, creating a legal tension with the AU’s Article 4(h), which suggests the AU could intervene without UNSC approval.
Has the AU ever conducted a military intervention without UNSC approval?
Answer: The 2008 AU intervention in The Comoros to remove an illegal leader was the only case not explicitly authorized by the UNSC, but it was justified as intervention by invitation, making it legally acceptable.
Why has the AU relied on the UN and external support for military operations?
Answer: The AU lacks financial and logistical capacity to conduct large-scale military interventions on its own, leading most AU missions to be endorsed by the UNSC or later integrated into UN-led operations (e.g., Burundi, Sudan, Somalia).
What does Erika de Wet conclude about the AU’s ability to challenge UN primacy in authorizing force?
Answer: She argues that despite its legal framework, the AU has not established a new customary right to intervene without UNSC approval and remains dependent on the UN system and external funding for its peacekeeping missions.
