The contemporary debate surrounding the legitimacy or not of Humanitarian Intervention (HI) is, to a large extent, based on the controversial interpretation of state sovereignty (Wheeler 2001: 550). In a society arguably built upon the principles of non-intervention, but with an increasing global awareness of and attention to the principles of humanity and human rights, the future of HI is subject to when and how these conflicting principles are resolved (Wheeler 2001: 551). In our post-September 11 world, HI has again been laden with doubts and scepticism regarding legitimacy, resulting in discussions of intervention in cases of grievous rights abuses being dismissed or discredited through the excuse of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Macfarlane
…show more content…
As all states are regarded as equal, the principle of sovereignty is seen as extremely important in maintaining international order and stability (ICISS). The primary basis of the argument against HI is the upholding of the sovereignty and non-intervention principles often interpreted as the foundation of the UN Charter (Pawlowska 2005: 488), however, these principles have caveats attached. As stipulated in the Charter, whilst sovereignty gives states the authority to govern the people within their territory, it is not an absolute or inalienable authority and is subject to regulation - hence Charter I, Article 2.7 that stipulates the principles of sovereignty will not prejudice the application of enforcement measures listed under Chapter VII relating to responses to threats to peace (United Nations). Despite these norms, the conduct of governments in the treatment of their people has increasingly become an area of concern in the international arena in recent decades (Wheeler 1992: 478). The ICISS report argues that rather than the relationship between intervention and sovereignty being contradictory, the two are in fact complimentary to one another (Macfarlane et al. 2004: 978). As the report …show more content…
Historically, colonial powers have rationalised the use of force by claiming humanitarian rationale, often just an alibi for underlying economic or political motivations (Weiss 2012: 431). Thus one of the key objections to a doctrine of HI is on the basis of the potential for abuse from states acting in their own self interest, or applying the principles selectively (Wheeler 1992: 471). This objection, however, is countered by Wheelers argument that the primary importance of HI is whether or not there are humanitarian justifications and results that legitimate the action, irrespective of possible state self-interests. Once the principles and norms are established, they would ‘serve to constrain even the most powerful actors in the international system’ (Mertus 2003: 225). Consequently, regardless of whether the intervention is at its core motivated by humanitarian objectives, once invoking the principles the actor would be required to abide by them as if genuinely driven by them. If a state was to claim humanitarian reasoning, they would then be bound by humanitarian laws and their military actions constrained within them (Mertus 2003: 226). In terms of the controversial US invasion of Iraq, which many believe to have been a case of distorting the R2P principles in an effort to legitimise their use of force, this has provided an
As all states are regarded as equal, the principle of sovereignty is seen as extremely important in maintaining international order and stability (ICISS). The primary basis of the argument against HI is the upholding of the sovereignty and non-intervention principles often interpreted as the foundation of the UN Charter (Pawlowska 2005: 488), however, these principles have caveats attached. As stipulated in the Charter, whilst sovereignty gives states the authority to govern the people within their territory, it is not an absolute or inalienable authority and is subject to regulation - hence Charter I, Article 2.7 that stipulates the principles of sovereignty will not prejudice the application of enforcement measures listed under Chapter VII relating to responses to threats to peace (United Nations). Despite these norms, the conduct of governments in the treatment of their people has increasingly become an area of concern in the international arena in recent decades (Wheeler 1992: 478). The ICISS report argues that rather than the relationship between intervention and sovereignty being contradictory, the two are in fact complimentary to one another (Macfarlane et al. 2004: 978). As the report …show more content…
Historically, colonial powers have rationalised the use of force by claiming humanitarian rationale, often just an alibi for underlying economic or political motivations (Weiss 2012: 431). Thus one of the key objections to a doctrine of HI is on the basis of the potential for abuse from states acting in their own self interest, or applying the principles selectively (Wheeler 1992: 471). This objection, however, is countered by Wheelers argument that the primary importance of HI is whether or not there are humanitarian justifications and results that legitimate the action, irrespective of possible state self-interests. Once the principles and norms are established, they would ‘serve to constrain even the most powerful actors in the international system’ (Mertus 2003: 225). Consequently, regardless of whether the intervention is at its core motivated by humanitarian objectives, once invoking the principles the actor would be required to abide by them as if genuinely driven by them. If a state was to claim humanitarian reasoning, they would then be bound by humanitarian laws and their military actions constrained within them (Mertus 2003: 226). In terms of the controversial US invasion of Iraq, which many believe to have been a case of distorting the R2P principles in an effort to legitimise their use of force, this has provided an