International Humanitarian Intervention And Establishment Of An International Jurisdiction Over Crimes Against Humanity: The National And International Military Trials On Crete In 1898

AbstractThis essay investigates the connection between humanitarian intervention and R2P within an historical, legal, and conceptual context. It challenges the widely held view that Africa lacks the capacity to intervene in areas of conflict and human rights violations, arguing instead that the continent possesses the will and instruments to protect human rights. The author notes that, while the UN Security Council retains the primary responsibility for promoting global peace and security, the R2P norm remains contested even within the UN. The ECOWAS interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s were initially undertaken without UN approval, but were later sanctioned by the world body. These interventions undermined the idea of state sovereignty as independence from external interventions, which had previously constrained humanitarian missions in Africa. However, the essay argues that the R2P principle was boosted by the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 to prosecute persons suspected of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or genocide. In addition, the intervention clause in the AU's Constitutive Act of 2000 supports the R2P principle while prohibiting unilateral interventions. Notwithstanding these developments, the author notes that the AU and Africa's regional bodies still have a long way to go in translating the R2P doctrine into practice.

Download Full-text

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

Ethics & International Affairs ◽

10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00012.x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 143-169 ◽

Cited By ~ 70

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.

Download Full-text

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

Political science (RU) ◽

10.31249/poln/2020.03.09 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Humanitäre Intervention und internationale Gerichtsbarkeit – Verflechtung militärischer und juristischer Implementierungsmaßnahmen zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts

Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift ◽

10.1515/mgzs-2013-0001 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 72 (1) ◽

pp. 1-22 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fabian Klose

Keyword(s):

Nineteenth Century ◽

Great Britain ◽

Slave Trade ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Main Argument ◽

Unique Combination ◽

International Jurisdiction ◽

Transatlantic Slave Trade ◽

In The Beginning

Abstract The origins of the phenomena of international jurisdiction and humanitarian intervention can already be found in the beginning of the nineteenth century. The article combines both topics and shows that these two concepts are directly related to one another. Beginning with the international ban of the slave trade in 1815 the analysis focuses on the corresponding implementation machinery created under the leadership of Great Britain. This machinery consisted of a hitherto unique combination of military and juridical measures which were directly dependent on each other. The main argument of the article is that the geneses of the concept of international jurisdiction and humanitarian intervention are significantly entangled with each other and both of their origins lie in the fight against the transatlantic slave trade in the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Download Full-text

L'intervention humanitaire peut-elle être conçue comme un «devoir parfait»?

Dialogue ◽

10.1017/s0012217300002626 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 47 (2) ◽

pp. 291-310

Author(s):

Stéphane Courtois

Keyword(s):

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

International Community ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Imperfect Duty ◽

Perfect Duty

ABSTRACTThis article examines the claim recently put forward by Terry Nardin, Kok-Chor Tan, and Carla Bagnoli that humanitarian intervention ought to be conceived, not as an imperfect duty (a duty of assistance to the victims of crimes against humanity left to the discretion of the members of the international community), but—assuming that the permissibility conditions have been satisfied—as a perfect duty (an unconditional obligation demanded by justice). After explaining why such a position can be considered as legitimate, it underlines some of its difficulties and provides the elements of a response in order to overcome them.

Download Full-text

16. The Responsibility to Protect

International Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198791836.003.0016 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Spencer Zifcak

Keyword(s):

Political Development ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Responsibility To Protect ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

World Summit ◽

International Intervention ◽

Detailed Consideration ◽

The North ◽

The World ◽

Before And After

This chapter discusses the responsibility to protect, which has become the primary conceptual framework within which to consider international intervention to prevent crimes against humanity; it provides the background to the new doctrine’s appearance with a survey of the existing law and practice with respect to humanitarian intervention. It traces the doctrine’s intellectual and political development both before and after the adoption of the World Summit resolutions that embodied it. Debate about the doctrine has been characterized by significant differences of opinion and interpretation between nations of the North and the South. In that context, the chapter concludes with a detailed consideration of the contemporary standing of the doctrine in international law.

Download Full-text

‘Humanitarian Intervention’

10.1093/law/9780199673049.003.0036 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Nigel S. Rodley

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Use Of Force ◽

War Crimes ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Ethnic Cleansing ◽

Un Security Council ◽

State Practice ◽

Human Rights Violation

This chapter examines whether so-called humanitarian intervention is a lawful exception to the international law prohibiting use of force when rescuing populations from widespread grave human rights violations, without UN Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. It considers what type or level of human rights violation or abuse justifies ‘humanitarian intervention’ if it were permitted, with reference to the R2P categories of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It discusses the UN Charter provisions and state practice on the prohibition on use of force, and criteria used to determine the legality of action deemed humanitarian intervention. The chapter describes tests that an intervention would have to pass and would be applicable to mitigate culpability, including gravity of the situation, political neutrality, the circumstances of the Security Council’s inability to act, and principles of necessity and proportionality. It argues that there is no humanitarian exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international law.

Download Full-text

Ecological Intervention: Prospects and Limits

Ethics & International Affairs ◽

10.1111/j.1747-7093.2007.00101.x ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

pp. 293-316 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Robyn Eckersley

Keyword(s):

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Spillover Effects ◽

Environmental Philosophy ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Mass Extinctions ◽

Self Defense ◽

The Holocaust ◽

The Military ◽

Political Norms ◽

Nonhuman Species

This essay seeks to extend the already controversial debate about humanitarian intervention by exploring the morality, legality, and legitimacy of ecological intervention and its corollary, ecological defense. If the legacy of the Holocaust was acceptance of a new category of “crimes against humanity” and an emerging norm of humanitarian intervention, then should the willful or reckless perpetration of mass extinctions and massive ecosystem destruction be regarded as “crimes against nature” or “ecocide” such as to ground a new norm of ecological intervention or ecological defense? The essay shows that the minimalist argument for ecological intervention—multilateral intervention in the case of environmental emergencies with major transboundary spillover effects—is the strongest and may be defended as ecological self-defense. “Eco-humanitarian intervention” to prevent ecocide involving serious human rights violations has the same precarious status as humanitarian intervention, however, and is unlikely to garner the support of developing countries. The most challenging case of all—the military rescue of nonhuman species—finds moral support in environmental philosophy but conflicts with deeply entrenched international legal and political norms concerning state territorial rights.

Download Full-text

R2P and International Law

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198753841.013.11 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nigel S. Rodley

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Use Of Force ◽

War Crimes ◽

Armed Force ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Ethnic Cleansing ◽

Human Rights Violation

Reluctant for its first two decades to consider states’ human rights performance, the UN gradually developed an extensive network of machinery to examine human rights violations in some states and categories of violation in all states. Action was limited to investigation and condemnation. The overwhelming majority of states and commentators rejected the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ that had had some currency until the UN Charter’s proscription of the use of force by states. It took the UN sixty years to accept that the Security Council could and should take necessary coercive measures, including armed force, to confront the most extreme forms of human rights violation or atrocity such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In doing so, it sanctified a new doctrine and codified its scope. Political and material realities seem to require sober expectations about the UN’s actual ability to protect populations from these atrocities.

Download Full-text

INTERVENSI KEMANUSIAAN NATO DI LIBYA : ANALISIS JUS IN BELLO

Review of International Relations ◽

10.24252/rir.v1i1.9303 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mayora Bunga Swastika

Keyword(s):

Arab Spring ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Just War Theory ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Literature Study ◽

Street Vendor ◽

Jus In Bello ◽

The Arab Spring ◽

The Impact ◽

Nato Intervention

The Arab Spring is a term for the revolutions of countries in the Middle East. The Arab Spring has a purpose to overthrow a dictatorial government. The series of Arab Spring began with protest in Tunisia on December 18, 2010. This protest started with Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, who set himself on fire as a protest against corruption. The success of the protest in Tunisia gave a domino effect to the surrounding countries. The impact of the Arab Spring also occurred in Libya in 2011. Libyan leader, Muhammar al-Gaddafi who has been in power for 42 years, refused to resign. This triggered protest from the Libyan people. Civil war happened in Libya between the pro-Gaddafi group and the opposition. NATO conducted humanitarian intervention in Libya under the official UN mandate. This article provides a humanitarian intervention analysis conducted by NATO using just war theory, especially the principle of jus in bello. The purpose of this article is to find out whether the intervention was in accordance with the jus in bello principle or not. This article used the literature study method by collecting data related to NATO intervention in Libya. This article shows that there are crimes against humanity committed by NATO in Libya. But, NATO intervention in Libya can reach the goal if viewed with proportionality principle in jus in bello. Keywords: Libyan conflict, humanitarian intervention, jus in bello.

Download Full-text