Authorizing Humanitarian Intervention: Hard Choices in Saving Strangers

Abstract

Abstract.In recent years, the question of authorization for the use of force for humanitarian purposes has become more contentious than ever. Participants on both sides of the debate, namely those rejecting any exception to the requirement for UN authorization and the proponents of surpassing this in cases of exceptional humanitarian emergencies, do not seem to have reached any consensus. This article examines these opposing arguments, their legal interpretations, and tests the theoretical assumptions against state practice through a review of the record of humanitarian interventions since the 1990s. The final purpose is to assess two of the most promising alternatives for authorization: the UN and regional organizations. This analysis suggests some implications of the debate for the perception of the UN role in authorizing interventions, in addition to determining the need for alternative mechanisms to authorize interventions for humanitarian purposes.Résumé.Dans les dernières années, la question de l'autorisation du recours à la force dans des missions à but humanitaire est devenu un sujet particulièrement contesté de l'actualité. Les participants aux deux côtés du débat, ceux qui rejettent toute exception à l'autorisation préalable des Nations Unies et ceux qui proposent de court-circuiter l'ONU dans des situations humanitaires d'une urgence exceptionnelle seulement, ne semblent pas pourvoir atteindre de consensus. Cet article examime ces deux vues opposées et leurs interprétations juridiques et met leurs hypothèses théoriques à l'épreuve de la pratique en considérant les missions humanitaires entreprises depuis 1990. Le but ultime consiste à évaluer deux des alternatives d'autorisation les plus prometteuses : celle des Nations Unies et celle d'organisations régionales. Cette analyse suggère certaines implications du débat quant à la perception du rôle des Nations Unies dans le processus d'autorisation des interventions et révèle, d'autre part, le besoin de mécanismes nouveaux pour autoriser ces missions humanitaires.

Cinematography: A Medium in International Studies - Film, International Law and Humanitarian Diplomacy

“…In that the U.S is a victim of the 9/11 attacks, and that the country acted in self-defense to not only protect itself from terrorist activity but the larger international world as well. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter gives sovereign nations the right to act in self-defense and was also one of the pertinent reasons given by the Bush administration to wage the WoT (Badescu, 2007). Responsibility to Protect (R2P), on the other hand, is also a United Nations' doctrine that stipulates, that nations have a collective responsibility towards each other in order to stop (among others) crimes against humanity (Badescu, 2007).…”

“…Article 51 of the United Nations Charter gives sovereign nations the right to act in self-defense and was also one of the pertinent reasons given by the Bush administration to wage the WoT (Badescu, 2007). Responsibility to Protect (R2P), on the other hand, is also a United Nations' doctrine that stipulates, that nations have a collective responsibility towards each other in order to stop (among others) crimes against humanity (Badescu, 2007). Thus, the premise of the film, to a certain extent, is positioned within these ideals and principles of international law.…”

The Responsibility To Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-Down

“…Unlike the ICISS report's suggestions placing equal emphasis on conflict prevention, post-conflict rebuilding and reaction, paragraphs 138-140 of the World Summit Outcome Document do not explicitly consider such a continuum of measures. Also, the Summit Outcome Document does not provide an answer to what should happen in instances when the Security Council is unable to agree on specific mechanisms in cases requiring swift reaction, as has been the case many times in the past (see Wheeler, 2005;Bellamy, 2006;Badescu, 2007).…”