Stop governments engaging in widespread atrocities (generally also for self-interested reasons)
1971 – India invaded E. Pakistan
1978 – Vietnam invaded Cambodia
1979 – Tanzania invaded Uganda
Never relied on humanitarian intervention – instead – SELF-DEFENSE
Cold War – didn’t want to formally accept doctrine of HI – feared it would be liable to abuse
When Cold War came to end – SC is back!
Possible justifications for humanitarian intervention (use of force to protect another state’s citizens from serious and widespread abuse of HR)
Humanitarian intervention not directed against state’s territorial integrity or political independence, and thus doesn’t violate Article 2(4)
States exist to further rights of their citizens – when they attack/fail to protect them, they forfeit the legal protections of statehood
When SC is deadlocked, preexisting customary int’l law right of humanitarian intervention should revive
Theory of necessity permits use of force as lesser of two evils
Security Council Led HI
Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, DRC, Libera, Sudan, Haiti, Sierra Leone
Determined each case posed threat to int’l peace and security.
Even though many of these cases were internal conflicts.
NATO, not UN, intervenes with use of force.
Numerous SC resolutions determining there was a threat to int’l peace and security
SC Res. 1160 – demanded Belgrade withdraw its “special police”
SC Res. 1199 – demanded Belgrade cease hostilities and negotiate political settlement
Rejected SC resolution to condemn bombing campaign
Legally – this doesn’t mean anything
Violated 2(4) of Charter
Violate design of charter – cost-benefit analysis
Risk of escalating interstate conflict inherent in weakening restraints on use of force outweigh possible benefit of exceptions for grave humanitarian need where SC can’t authorize military intervention
Uphold state sovereignty AND complete prohibition on use of force
Kosovo is not independent state. Non-governmental entity can’t call for assistance
Other states aren’t “directly” affected
Where’s report to SC under article 51?
International views on NATO’s decision
NATO Javier Solana (941-42) Avoids relying on single legal justification
Not waging war
Necessary – no alternative
Humanitarian, HR concerns – de facto HI argument?
Doesn’t want to get tied down on particular argument – aware of power of IL norms.
“humanitarian catastrophe” not “humanitarian intervention”
Still nervous about Russian use of these options.
UN Kofi Annan (942) Politically – can’t alienate P5, but still asserting respect for law