(4) humanitarian intervention (class 12) (25 points)
Please explain:
(a) the arguments why humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was legitimate under international law;
While the U.N. Charter does not say anything about humanitarian intervention, Article 2(4) of the Charter does prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” (Cited handout) Some feel that this prohibits any type of humanitarian intervention, wherein one state violates the sovereignty of another to prevent atrocities being perpetrated against the citizens of that state by that state or others. One argument made is that a state sacrifices some sovereignty when it commits mass atrocities, or is unable or unwilling …show more content…
Security Council has authorized humanitarian intervention, it has used Chapter VII of the Charter as its justification, citing a “threat to international peace and security,” even in cases of internal conflict like Somalia. (DRW, p. 888) When the Security Council has not authorized the use of force, like with NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, supporters argued that the situation was a “humanitarian emergency” and that NATO was a body with a “multilateral” decision-making process. In the ICJ case, NATO also argued that diplomacy had failed to stop the atrocities, and that it was acting to “prevent instability from spreading in the region,” (a threat to Chapter VII of the Charter – as Belgium argued in its case before the ICJ) and that the intervention was intended to prevent abuses of international law. (DRW, p. 891, 895) Belgium further pointed out that there have been numerous precedents of humanitarian intervention. (DRW, p. 895) Some also argue that “international law must be flexible enough to accommodate such interventions,” (DRW, p. 890) and, as Kofi Annan said (and Belgium quoted), “Emerging slowly, but I believe surely it is an international norm against the violent repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.” (DRW, p. …show more content…
While this may be true, it disputes the conduct during war (jus in bello) considerations, not the legality of the intervention itself (jus ad bellum). In its case against Belgium, however, Yugoslavia argued that NATO’s and Belgium’s arguments of “necessity” were specious because a “state of necessity may not be invoked by a State to defend the wrongness of an act unless a) the act was the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State against a grave and imminent peril; and b) the act did not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards which the obligation existed.” (DRW, p.
Please explain:
(a) the arguments why humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was legitimate under international law;
While the U.N. Charter does not say anything about humanitarian intervention, Article 2(4) of the Charter does prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” (Cited handout) Some feel that this prohibits any type of humanitarian intervention, wherein one state violates the sovereignty of another to prevent atrocities being perpetrated against the citizens of that state by that state or others. One argument made is that a state sacrifices some sovereignty when it commits mass atrocities, or is unable or unwilling …show more content…
Security Council has authorized humanitarian intervention, it has used Chapter VII of the Charter as its justification, citing a “threat to international peace and security,” even in cases of internal conflict like Somalia. (DRW, p. 888) When the Security Council has not authorized the use of force, like with NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, supporters argued that the situation was a “humanitarian emergency” and that NATO was a body with a “multilateral” decision-making process. In the ICJ case, NATO also argued that diplomacy had failed to stop the atrocities, and that it was acting to “prevent instability from spreading in the region,” (a threat to Chapter VII of the Charter – as Belgium argued in its case before the ICJ) and that the intervention was intended to prevent abuses of international law. (DRW, p. 891, 895) Belgium further pointed out that there have been numerous precedents of humanitarian intervention. (DRW, p. 895) Some also argue that “international law must be flexible enough to accommodate such interventions,” (DRW, p. 890) and, as Kofi Annan said (and Belgium quoted), “Emerging slowly, but I believe surely it is an international norm against the violent repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.” (DRW, p. …show more content…
While this may be true, it disputes the conduct during war (jus in bello) considerations, not the legality of the intervention itself (jus ad bellum). In its case against Belgium, however, Yugoslavia argued that NATO’s and Belgium’s arguments of “necessity” were specious because a “state of necessity may not be invoked by a State to defend the wrongness of an act unless a) the act was the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State against a grave and imminent peril; and b) the act did not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards which the obligation existed.” (DRW, p.