Humanitarian Intervention

1
Humanitarian Intervention

• Some Legal Aspects

2
Preamble

• The Doctrine is new
• Since 1990 escalation of confrontations raise new
  questions
  
• New terminology invented, including the term
  Humanitarian Intervention
  

3
The term

• English Intervention involvement
• Russian ??????????? military interference
• For the report intervention - military
  interference of any martial agent out of the
  territory of the state it belongs, or involvement
  of any international armed perpetrators both
  without agreement of the subject state government
  or if the government does not actually exist

4
The Dispute

• Two parties
• Realists Intervention without UN SC
  authorization is appropriate
  
• Theorists Intervention out of UN framework is
  illegal

5
Realists Arguments

• Primacy of human rights over sovereign equality
  principle. (disputable)
  
• UN Security Council unfairness, unrepresentative
  membership and double-standards
  

6
Theorists Arguments

• Intervention without UN Security Council is
  illegal.
  
• pacta sunt servanda

7
Legal aspect 1

• intervention is maintenance or restoration of
  international peace and security according to
  Article 42 of UN Charter.
  
• Or
• intervention is self-defense under Article 51
  of UN Charter
  

8
Intervention vs Sovereignty

• intervention as we consider it is an action of
  overcoming a states sovereignty.
  
• Is anyone, except UN Security council is able to
  overcome a states sovereignty?

9
Sovereignty

• Sovereign equality of all UN members - the first
  of the guiding principles for the UN and its
  members. It can be overcome in accordance with
  the appropriate procedure (art.41-50 of UN
  Charter).

• Three types of sovereignty
• State sovereignty
• Peoples sovereignty
• National sovereignty

10
Legal aspect 2 (deduction)

• Peoples will is the only source of sovereignty.
• State is always its manager.
• If executing sovereignty against peoples
  interests, governor (government) should be
  removed.
  
• If peoples for some reason are incapable to do
  it themselves, help is to be provided.

11
The East Timor Intervention

• On September 12, 1999 Indonesian government
  accepted the help of international community in
  the situation settlement. Then UN Security
  Council empowered establishing of multinational
  military forces lead by Australia.
• After the burst of violence Indonesia removed its
  military and police powers. Governmental
  officials were recalled, and both Indonesia and
  Portugal accepted the transfer of control to UN.

12
The East Timor Intervention

• Operation in East Timor is faultless, considering
  the legal procedure of decision to intervene. The
  operations aim was establishing the government
  according to the will of East Timorese peoples
  revealed by plebiscite. Legally it can be
  considered as restoration of international peace
  and security according to Article 39 and realized
  in correspondence with 42 of UN Charter

13
The Kosovo Intervention

• On March 23 Secretary General of NATO required to
  start air force operations in former republic of
  Yugoslavia.
  
• UN Security Council enforced the UN intervention
  in Kosovo only on June 10 1999.

14
The Kosovo intervention

• Legal nature of this intervention is ambiguous.
• NATOs proof for its legitimacy is that UNSC
  determined the situation in Kosovo as threat to
  international peace and security.
  
• But none of both resolutions allowed NATO to
  intervene.

15
Summary

• Contemporary doctrine of humanitarian
  intervention is open to debate. Some scholars
  allow violation of international law, what is
  unlikely to be accepted by statute law advocates,
  but matches with emotions of apologists of
  precedent law.
• However, the concept is imperfect. As we are
  living in a civilized community, a way of
  resolving problems (e.g. resolution of a
  respective body, such as UN International Court)
  should be found in order to establish primacy of
  law, not military power.