Legality and Legitimization of Humanitarian Intervention

Zajadło, Jerzy

doi:10.1177/0002764204272570

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The UN Charter T.J. Lawrence wrote, "in international law there are only a few issues as complicated as those concerning the legality of interventions"~as quoted in Zajadlo, 2005: 665!. The UN Charter provides the most important source of legal and constitutional authority regarding the use of force.…”

Section: Legal Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorizing Humanitarian Intervention: Hard Choices in Saving Strangers

Badescu

2007

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Legal Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%