Humanitarian had not supported a no-fly zone

Humanitarian intervention has become popular controversial legal matters,
practices and instruments which a lot of states take part to deal with the
international disputes, violations of human rights, as well as risk faced by
people from war, famine and disease in order to help their own state and also
other states. After Russian and China had not supported a no-fly zone over Iraq
that was a policy of non-interference, the UK delegation invoked the right of
humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War for first time.1 A
number of conflicts had been increased, and those conflicts included border
disputes and humanitarian issues which the United Nations was responsible to
deal with them. This essay will give
description as to humanitarian intervention and the principles of
non-intervention, humanitarian intervention and the principles of the use of
force, and responsibility to protect (R2P). According to the topic provided, there
are four main key terms, including humanitarian intervention, non-intervention,
the use of force, and responsibility to protect. Humanitarian intervention does
not have legal definition defined by the United Nations, but it is still useful
when its significant definitions have been defined by two scholars.  Malvina Halberstam
defined humanitarian intervention as the use of force by a state to protect another
state’s persons who are in imminent danger of death when the state is unwilling
or unable to protect them.2 Stowell stated that humanitarian
intervention is justifiable use of force for protecting the inhabitants of
another state from arbitrarily abusive treatment which exceed the limits in
which the sovereign is presumed to act with reason and justice.3  Non-intervention is a policy in which the
absence of interference does not allow a state to violate another state’s
sovereignty, especially external affairs or internal affairs.4 The
use of force refers to the use of police or military for law enforcement,
self-defense or other legitimate purposes. The responsibility to protect (R2P
or RtoP) is a global political commitment which states use to prevent noticeable
international crimes, in particular, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity.5

                                                                 

1 Humanitarian intervention,
available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention. (Last modified on 4 December
2017, at 23:55).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2 The legality of military
humanitarian intervention, available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/military-law/the-legality-of-military-humanitarian-intervention.php. (Visited on January 8, 2018).

3 Ibid.,

4 Hodges, H. G. (1915). The
Doctrine of Intervention, p-1.

5 Responsibility to protect,
available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#cite_note-2. (Last modified on 21 December
2017, at 07:10)

 

 

1.    
Humanitarian intervention
and the principles of non-intervention

Humanitarian intervention differs
from the principles of non-intervention in simple definition, meaning, and
their principles; however, this does not mean that humanitarian intervention is
quite illegal under public international law. Humanitarian intervention is
performed to intervene in another state’s affairs in order to help state’s persons who will be in danger of
death or who are under violation of human rights when the state is unwilling or
unable to protect them. The principles of non-intervention admit the absence of
interference by a state that doesn’t allow a state to interfere another state’s
sovereignty, political independence or self-determination. The principles of
non-intervention are supported by the UN charter; for instance, Article 2(4) prohibits
interfering in the territorial integrity or political independence committed by
a state against another state.6 Nevertheless, humanitarian
intervention still conforms to the legality, especially the Purposes of the
United Nations stipulated in article 1(3) that a part of its purpose deal with humanitarian
intervention to promote the respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms.7 Michael Wood states that intervention, even military
intervention, with the consent by a state is not considered as illegal
interference or intervention.8 Specifically, in the Pacific Islands,
New Zealand’s humanitarian interventions in the Solomon Islands and East Timor were
non-coercive interventions because the nations had requested for the intervention.9
Therefore, humanitarian intervention by the consent does not violate the
international law or its purposes in the fact that these kinds of activities
allowed by the United Nations, the Security Council and even the International
Court of Justice. Michael Wood’s concept violates the principles of
non-interference defined by Henry G. Hodges, but this concept does not mean
that humanitarian intervention is illegal with the consent by state. Interferences
of a state’s internal affairs with or without its consent by the use of force
or other means contrast to the purposes of the public international law have no
legality except if such interferences are aimed at protecting international
peace, security and justice. For an example of legal interference, a state
invades another state and the former commits war of aggression and killing
people of the latter, thus the interference will take place in one of two
countries or both of them.

 

6 UN Charter 1945, art. 2(4).

7 Id. art. 1(3).

8 Non-Intervention
(Non-interference in domestic affairs), available at: https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/258. (Visited on 10 January 2018).

9 Non-interventionism, available
at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism#cite_note-1. (Last modified on 21 December
2017, at 14:00).

2.    
Humanitarian intervention
and the principles of the use of force

The
United Nations Charter also provides exceptions to the prohibition of the use
of force, including collective self-defense and authorization by the UN
Security Council.

A member of the United
Nations can use collective self-defense to help another state with or without
its consent.  The collective
self-defense must conform to the law of self-defense that have proportion of justified
force that does not cause serious destruction to the target state. This defense
is fully legal when it is used immediately against violating state. For
example, the violating state prepares or intends to commit illegal violation by
using chemical weapon against civilian mass; thus, a state is allowed to use
collective self-defense in order to stop the use of chemical weapon against the
civilian mass. If the situations of violation are not clear to be intervened,
collective self-defense still will be decided or used late. Therefore, a state
uses armed force in the manner of collective self-defense when crimes are clear
violation against the international law, such as, killing the mass or
civilians, use of chemical weapons, genocide, or war crime. Moreover, many
states or organizations like NATO used this collective self-defense to help
another state after the Security Council decided late or deadlocked because the
any permanent member (s) vetoed the recommendation issued by the Council. Under
Article 51, any states of the United Nations have inherent rights to protect
the United Nations members from any attack by the use of collective
self-defense or authorization of the Security Council.10 In this
case, if government of a state commits act of aggression, genocide or mass
destruction  or uses chemical weapons , the
states of United Nations are admitted to use of force with or without
authorization of the Security Council against such government which causes the
international crimes and violates the international law. The widely recognized legality of humanitarian
intervention results from the determination and authorization by the Security
Council.