After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force

Abstract

In the Bangladesh crisis, two important objectives of international law appeared to be in conflict: that of peace and that of justice. The former objective is set out in the rules of the U.N. Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack. The second is found in the provisions of the Charter and in various resolutions, declarations, and covenants pertaining to fundamental human rights and self determination.

The US and Cuba, 1895–98

“…176 Franck and Rodley dismiss it with the following comment: 'if the suppression of "barbarities, bloodshed, and misery" were the sole yardstick for U.S. intervention in the Latin America of that period, Washington would have been extremely busy ousting regimes, some of which it was rather active in establishing and upholding'. 177 Fonteyne, who refers approvingly to a number of humanitarian interventions in the nineteenth century, does not regard it as humanitarian. 178 We will conclude with the views of three present scholars engaged with the wider question of humanitarian intervention.…”

Assessment

“…The doctrine of humanitarian intervention was at its zenith in international law discourse from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1930s and in particular from the 1870s onward (see chapter 4).…”

“…Therefore they 'are of little precedential value in the contemporary world'. 4 Others have also pointed to 'double standards', with the 'international community' defined as the Christian community of states, and they maintain that no useful inferences can be drawn, for this would amount to reintroducing the unacceptable imperialist ethos of bygone days. 5 As for the selectivity factor, why support one of many cases, for instance the Greeks, the Maronites or the Bulgarians, but not intervene militarily on behalf of the Jews of Russia or the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire?…”

Ethics and Intervention: the ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq

“…Coming at the problem from very different perspectives, Franck & Rodley (1971) and Lepard (2002) conclude that there are sound moral grounds for humanitarian intervention, because there is 'common' agreement in a number of ethical traditions that crimes such as the mass killing of civilians are universally punishable. Thus, while a holy war is commanded by the Pope to protect Christian communities everywhere that are threatened by infidels, a 'humanitarian intervention' is commanded by 'humanity' to protect innocents under threat of mass execution.…”