UGC-NTA NET Political Science – Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is concept in international relations, particularly in the context of the United Nations (UN) and global governance. It involves military action by a state or coalition of states in another state’s territory, without consent, aimed at halting severe human rights abuses. This practice raises complex debates
Definition of Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by a state or group of states in another state, aimed at preventing or stopping widespread human rights violations. This intervention occurs without the consent of the host state, typically in response to crises such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or severe oppression.
Key Principles of Humanitarian Intervention
- Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – Established in 2005, R2P asserts that states have a duty to protect their populations from atrocities like genocide and war crimes. If they fail, the international community may intervene.
- Sovereignty vs. Human Rights – This principle addresses the tension between respecting state sovereignty and the need to protect human rights.
Legal Framework
The legal basis for humanitarian intervention is complex and involves various international laws and treaties.
United Nations Charter
- Article 2(4) – Prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- Article 51 – Allows for self-defence but does not explicitly authorise humanitarian intervention.
International Law
Customary international law and treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, establish a framework for intervention in cases of severe human rights violations. These laws aim to protect individuals during armed conflicts and outline the responsibilities of states.
Historical Examples of Humanitarian Intervention
Numerous historical instances illustrate the complexities and consequences of humanitarian intervention.
- Somalia (1992) – The UN Operation Restore Hope aimed to alleviate famine and civil strife, denoting the need for international assistance in humanitarian crises.
- Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995) – NATO intervened to halt ethnic cleansing and protect civilians, demonstrating the international community’s response to human rights abuses.
- Rwanda (1994) – The 1994 Rwandan genocide, where over 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed, revealed stark inadequacies in humanitarian intervention. The UN’s limited peacekeeping mission (UNAMIR) lacked sufficient mandate and resources to prevent atrocities. Global inaction highlighted failures to address mass atrocities, spurring later reforms in international responses, including the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
UN Security Council Resolutions
The UN Security Council has passed several resolutions addressing humanitarian crises and authorising interventions.
- Resolution 688 (1991) – Called for intervention to protect Kurdish populations in Iraq following the Gulf War, emphasising the need for humanitarian action.
- Resolution 1973 (2011) – Authorised member states to take necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya, reinforcing the role of the UN in humanitarian intervention.
Critiques and Challenges of Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is often met with criticism and presents several challenges.
- Selectivity – Interventions are frequently seen as selective, driven by political interests rather than genuine humanitarian needs.
- Sovereignty Concerns – The balance between intervention and respect for state sovereignty is a contentious issue in international law.
- Effectiveness – The effectiveness of interventions is often questioned, particularly regarding their long-term impact on stability.
- Post-Intervention Stability – Rebuilding and stabilising post-intervention states poses challenges, often leading to further conflict.
