Military intervention for humanitarian purposes: does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advance the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends?

2009 ◽  
Vol 91 (876) ◽  
pp. 803-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eve Massingham
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Loss Of Life ◽  
New Approach

AbstractThe Responsibility to Protect is being touted as a new approach to protecting populations from mass atrocities. Certainly it would be encouraging to believe that an end to genocides, large scale ethnic cleansing and large scale loss of life were within humanity's reach. However, whilst the holistic approach of the doctrine is to be commended, the legality of the proposal requires further analysis. This paper specifically addresses the evolution of the legality of humanitarian intervention and looks at whether the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advances the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends.

The Dangers of the Dissemination of Misinformation in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherine Foty
Keyword(s):  
Regime Change ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
Initial Report ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Domestic Affairs

The creation of the responsibility to protect doctrine reformulated the historical notion of humanitarian intervention. The new doctrine was centered around the principle of nonintervention, a basic precept of the u.n. Charter system, with its initial report explicitly excluding regime change disguised as humanitarian intervention as external to the scope of the doctrine. Military intervention was only to be the means of last resort after the exhaustion of several preliminary mechanisms. In its implementation, the broad mandate of the responsibility to protect has been harshly criticized because it opens the possibility for powerful States, often seeking regime change, to interfere in the domestic affairs of weaker States. This article will first discuss (i) the chronology and evolution of the doctrine, (ii) situating it in the context of the u.n. Charter prohibition on the use of force and articulating its nonbinding nature. It will then examine (iii) the cases of Libya and Syria, focusing on the initial decision to intervene and how the dissemination of misinformation has served to promote military interventions where they would otherwise be considered illegitimate. The article will conclude with a brief discussion of (iv) how the international community can move beyond misapplication and seek to limit its abuse.

The Use of Force

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor Seybolt
Keyword(s):  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Imminent Danger ◽  
Successes And Failures

This chapter argues that the use of force can prevent or end the atrocities of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The historical record, however, shows both successes and failures, and points to certain factors—especially a coherent strategy—that improve the prospect of protecting civilians who are in imminent danger. There is broad diplomatic support among governments for military intervention in the context of the responsibility to protect (R2P) but that support has not resulted in a groundswell of interventions. In light of the risk and difficulty of military intervention, selective use of force is preferable to engaging in military intervention early and often. Caution ought to remain a guiding principle, balanced against the knowledge that R2P without the use of force is meaningless in the situations where it is needed the most.

scholarly journals Safety, Humanism, and Barbarism: J. S. Mill on the Principle of Non-Intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-280
Author(s):  
Arseniy Kumankov ◽  
Dar'ya Chaganova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Level ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
Political Philosopher

The paper considers the Russian translation of the article “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” written by British political philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, and whose article, published in 1859, transforms the criteria restricting the principle of non-interference. Thus, in the essay “On Freedom”, the rule of non-interference into private life is described, but in “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”, Mill expands the principle to the international level, taking into consideration those situations allowing for intervention. The authors highlight the features of war contemporary to Mill, and articulate his military reflection in connection with the phenomenon of national liberation movements and revolts. They analyze Mill’s question if it is legitimate for one government to somehow intervene in the affairs of another. The logic of just military intervention for Mill in the cases described opens up the possibility for the use of force, but only for the civilized States. The philosopher divides the civilized nations from barbarians, where the latter are characterized as incapable of striving for freedom and therefore needing intervention from civilized countries. In this regard, the logic of the article leads to a strategy of humanitarian war caused by rhetoric of the “responsibility to protect”. The first Russian translation of “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” is proposed as a relevant source for the philosophy of war, raising the issue of sovereignty. It is stated that modern military practice poses the question of humanitarian intervention: is it worth neglecting sovereignty if we face a “scandal to humanity”?

scholarly journals Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Wallace Brown ◽  
Alexandra Bohm
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
Public Right

Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.

22. Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
pp. 334-349
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy ◽  
Stephen McLoughlin
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Security ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Cold War

This chapter examines the implications of humanitarian intervention for international security. It considers the debate between those who argue that the protection of civilians from genocide and mass atrocities is far more important than the principle of non-intervention in certain circumstances and those who oppose this proposition. This has become a particular problem in the post-Cold War world where the commission of atrocities in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur prompted calls for international society to step in to protect the victims with military force if necessary. Humanitarian intervention causes problems for international security by potentially weakening the rules governing the use of force in world politics. The chapter first considers the case against humanitarian intervention before discussing the principle known as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

Between rhetoric and reality: exploring the impact of military humanitarian intervention upon sexual violence – post-conflict sex trafficking in Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (877) ◽  
pp. 235-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha T. Godec
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
International Law ◽  
Sex Trafficking ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Feminist Perspective ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Nato Intervention

AbstractAdopting a feminist perspective, this paper analyses the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and its impact on women in recipient states, particularly with regard to sexual violence. By analysing the phenomenon of post-conflict trafficking in Kosovo following the NATO intervention, the author presents a challenge to the ‘feminist hawks’ who have called for military intervention in situations of systematic sexual violence. It is the author's contention that such intervention would be counterproductive for women's rights and thus constitute a disproportionate response to sexual violence in terms of the international law governing the use of force.

Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy
Keyword(s):  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
The Face ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Relationship

At the 2005 World Summit, the world‘s leaders committed themselves to the “responsibility to protect”, recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world’s most threatened people. The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world‘s states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN’s High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around intervention in future cases.

scholarly journals Evolution of the BRICS countries' approaches to the «responsibility to protect»

2020 ◽  
pp. 190-214
Author(s):  
Svetlana Bokeriya ◽  
Dmitriy Sidorov
Keyword(s):  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Active Part ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Present Stage ◽  
Personal Security ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
Peace And Security

The three-stage transformation in the framework of «humanitarian intervention – personal security – responsibility to protect (R2 P)» reflects the international community's search for the most effective forms of protecting the population from crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. The concept of humanitarian intervention turned out to be untenable, and in 2005 the «responsibility to protect» was formalized. Responsibility to protect concept was intended to become an effective tool in the field of ensuring peace and security. The article deals with the approaches of the BRICS countries, which took an active part in the development of the R2 P, to its interpretation at the present stage. The contradictory semantic content and legal non-formality of the concept make it difficult to implement it in practice and divide R2 P researchers into two main groups. The key goal of the article is to study the evolution of the positions of the BRICS countries on R2 P.

From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Mills ◽  
Cian O’Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The World

In contrast with humanitarian access or the provision of humanitarian assistance, humanitarian intervention is commonly defined as the threat or use of force by a state to prevent or end widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied. In support of their cause, advocates of humanitarian intervention often draw upon and reference the authority of the notional “just war.” The four main ways by which humanitarian intervention has been connected to the idea of the just war relate to the ideals of self-determination, punishment, responsibility, and conditional sovereignty. For a humanitarian intervention to be considered legitimate, there must be a just cause for intervention; the use of force must be a last resort; it must meet the standard of proportionality; and there must be a good likelihood that the use of force will contribute to a positive humanitarian outcome. The historical practice of humanitarian intervention can be traced from the nineteenth century to the recognition of the Responsibility to Protect by the World Summit in 2005 and its application in Darfur. Major conceptual debates surrounding humanitarian intervention include the problematic relation between sovereignty and human rights, the legal status of intervention, the issue of multilateralism versus unilateralism, and the quest for criteria for intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document