Al Akhawayn University

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

Is Humanitarian Military Intervention Justifiable?

By

Ismail Khejjou

Class: Advanced International Relations

Instructor: Dr. Jack Kalpakian

Ifrane, Morocco

December 3rd, 2010

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

What is Humanitarian Intervention? ........................................................................... 4

Debate on the legality of Humanitarian Intervention ................................................. 5

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 13

Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 14

2
 … if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty,
how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic
violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?1

Introduction

The question of humanitarian military intervention has long been the

subject of discussion among scholars of international relations. Scholars have dated

the practice of intervention to the Dutch International Lawyer, Hugo Grotious2.

Even further, Tonny Brems Knudsen acknowledges that "Grotius himself traced

[humanitarian intervention] back to ancient Greece and Rome with reference to

Aristotle and Seneca as well as examples of Roman emperors using or threatening

to use force against the Persians in order to compel them to stop their persecutions

of Christians on account of religion"3. Throughout history, there have been several

devastating humanitarian crises that required the action of the international

community. For example, the post Cold War era was a period that witnessed a

disturbing rise of civil wars and intra-states conflict around the world. These wars

resulted in a state of chaos, which consequently led to a destabilizing civil society

and the committing of human crimes against civilians, such as massacre and ethnic

cleansing. Such circumstances posed a serious challenge to the international

community in terms of whether to intervene to prevent violence against civilians.

1
Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the United Nations, We the people: “The Role of The United Nations
on the 20st Century” (accessed 06 November 2010) available at http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/ch3.pdf
2
John M. Kabia, Humanitarian Intervention and Conflict in West Africa: From Ecomog to Eomil (U.K: Ashgate,
2009), 13.
3
Tonny brems Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention” Paper for the 50th ISA Annual Convention,
New York, February 15-18 2009 accessed at http://zunia.org/uploads/media/knowledge /isa09_
proceeding_3708011262835777.pdf
3
Among the most cited cases are Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, East Timor,

and many others where thousands of people were killed. Interestingly, these cases

sparked a very critical debate among scholars and academics and largely forced the

international community to rethink its approach to the doctrine of humanitarian

intervention. The 1990s, Anne Orford states, "represents a new phase in the

progress of international legal arguments in favour of humanitarian intervention"4.

It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to argue that humanitarian intervention is

justifiable. There are three important arguments that support my position

regarding the legitimacy of intervention. The first argument focuses on human

rights and the second one is related to authoritarian regimes under which citizens

are tortured and killed. The third argument will deal with the principle of

awareness-raising.

What is Humanitarian Intervention?

At the outset, a clear definition of humanitarian intervention is needed.

According to J.L. Holzgrefe, "humanitarian intervention is the threat or use of force

across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending

widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals

other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose

4
Anne Orford, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human rights and the Use of Force in International Law (USA:
Cambridge University, 2003), 4.
4
territory force is applied"5 Taylor B. Seybol, on the other hand, defines

humanitarian intervention as "a short-term activity with limited political objectives.

It is intended only to stop the worst suffering. It is not intended to establish a

lasting peace or to put a new, or renewed, political system in place, although it can

establish a basis for peace-building by creating an environment in which people can

think about more than mere survival"6

It is important to note that the two definitions are slightly different in the

sense that the former explicitly includes the use of force while the latter does not.

Although scholars define the concept of humanitarian intervention in different ways

the most serious debate among them remains largely about the "legality and

legitimacy of an intervention"7. In fact, this is a major point of disagreement

between those who are in favor of humanitarian intervention and those who hold

views against it.

Debate on the legality of Humanitarian Intervention

The literature on the practice of humanitarian intervention is vast. For a

clear understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention this section will

provide an insight into the two major schools of thoughts, the restrictionist and the

5
J.L. Holzgrefe „The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,‟ in J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane eds.,
Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press, new York, 2003),
p.18
6
Taylor B. Seybol, Humanitarian military intervention: the conditions for success and failure, (Oxfor University
Press: USA, 2007), 6.
7
Rudi Guraziu, Is Humanitarian military intervention in the affairs of another state ever justified? Accessed at
http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot /files/articlepdf/Is%20humanitarian %20military%20intervention
%20ever%20justified.pdf
5
counter-restrictionist. Restrictionists, or non-interventiosnists, base their argument

on the principle of sovereignty as an important source of peace and stability in the

world. They argue that the abuse of state sovereignty goes against the principles

and values that were formally recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

Furthermore, restrictionists defend their position by referring to the Article 2(4) of

the U.N charter as a powerful legal document that prohibits violent actions against

a state sovereignty. The charter clearly asserts that "all Members shall refrain in

their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial

integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent

with the Purposes of the United Nations."8 Additionally, non-interventionists view

humanitarian interventions as mostly driven by national interests of the

intervening states. Moreover, they believe that the principle of human rights is

only used to justify their intervention. One example brought up by non-

interventionists is that of the United States intervening in Kosovo and not in

Rwanda. The underlying idea here is the United States selected Kosovo because its

intervention was largely driven by interests that probably would not be served in

Rwanda. In such cases, the issue of selectivity contradicts the objective of

humanitarian intervention. Realists such as Thomas Frank and Nigel Rodely

believe that when intervention is guided and motivated by concerns of self-

interests, it becomes a pure instrument of manipulation rather than a mission

carried out in the name of humanity. Closely connected to this is the view that

8
Article 1(4) , UN Charter accessed from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
6
states should be concerned only with what happens inside their territories. This

statist position is famously advanced by Samuel P. Huntington who "asserted in

relation to US intervention in Somalia that it is morally unjustifiable and politically

indefensible that members of [US] armed forces should be killed to prevent Somalis

from killing each other"9

Counter-restrictionists, on the other hand, ground their argument on the

principle of morality. According to this line of thinking, there is a moral obligation

that justifies humanitarian intervention although it is seen by many as an illegal

action. The case of Kosovo is an example where intervention was not only needed

but morally supported by the international community to prevent massive human

rights violations committed against civilians. According to Nicholas J. Wheeler,

there are four requirements for an intervention to be counted as or considered

humanitarian:

1) "There should be a supreme humanitarian emergency;

2) The use of force must be a last resort;

3) It must meet the requirement of proportionality;

4) There must be a high probability that the use of force will achieve a positive

humanitarian outcome."10

9
Nicholas Jeweler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian in International Society, (Oxford University Press: New York,
2000).31.
10
Nicholas Jeweler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian in International Society, P 34
7
 Examples of cases where intervention is morally justified are crimes against

humanity and Genocide as it happened in Rwanda where a great number of people

were tortured and killed.

Having presented different views on the practice of humanitarian

intervention this section will discuss arguments in favor of intervention. Defenders

of the practice of humanitarian military intervention take the principle of human

rights to be one of their central arguments. In this regard, the support of

humanitarian military intervention to protect the right and freedom of the

individual is taken from the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was

written in 1948"11. Basically, the legitimacy of intervention is based on the idea

that people hold fundamental rights that should not be abused and violated such as

the right to life, liberty and security of person. The case of Kosovo and East Timor,

among others, played a critical role in convincing the international community,

under the leadership of the United States and Europe, to support the legality of the

use of force. The speech by Tony Blair is significant in this context. Referring to war

in Kosovo, Blair said

This war was not fought for Albanians against Serbs. It was not
fought for territory. Still less for NATO aggrandisement. It was
fought for a fundamental principle necessary for humanity's
progress: that every human being, regardless of race, religion or
birth, has the inalienable right to live free from persecution.12

11
Michael Newman, Humanitarian Intervention: Confronting the contradictions, (Columbia University Press: New
York, 2009), 84.
12
Tony Blair, „Statement on the Suspension of NATO Air Strikes against Yugoslavia‟, London, 10 June 1999,
http://www.fco.gov.uk/news /newstext.asp?2536 (accessed 28 October 2010)
8
 Basically, the use of force to prevent massive human rights abuses is

sufficiently justified as long as the action is taken with humanitarian intentions.

This shows that the humanitarian intervention is mainly driven by a moral

objective and that is the responsibility to protect those who are victims of war and

violence. Haiti is one of those countries in which humanitarian intervention,

Madeleine Albright says, led to "the effort to place the law on the side of the people

of Haiti for perhaps the first time in that nation's history"13

It is important to note that the need to protect individuals from violence

forms the basis of the moral obligation that defines humanitarian intervention.

Relatedly, intervention is justified when it is perceived to be in the interest of the

intervening state. According to Mark R. Amstutz, "this condition is satisfied when

the intervening state perceives human rights abuses in a foreign country as either a

general threat to the order, legitimacy, and morality of global society or a particular

threat to its own economic prosperity, political influences, and territorial integrity"14

This was the case of the United States intervention in Haiti. The United States

viewed that domestic unrest and the escalation of social instability in Haitian

society would threaten international peace and security. Equally important, the

responsibility of the United States to react was not only driven by human rights

13
Madeleine K. Albright, Enforcing International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of
International Law), Vol. 89, (APRIL 5-8, 1995), pp. 574-580 accessed at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25658981?origin=JSTOR-pdf

14
Mark R. Amstutz, “International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics” (Rowman &
Littlefield:USA, 2005), 144.

9
concerns, but also geographical considerations in the sense that the two countries

are close to each other. Another critical example is that of Iraq`s repression of the

Kurds which generated "a massive flow of refugees towards and across

international frontiers and to cross-border incursions which threaten international

peace and security in the region"15 This refugee issue galvanized states to

intervene. It is important to say that humanitarian intervention is justified when it

is carried out to reduce sufferings, end human rights atrocities and most

importantly contribute to the international order of global society.

Another legitimate reason that justifies humanitarian military intervention

is overthrowing authoritarian governments. There have been instances where

ruthless dictators harshly repress their citizens and commit massive human rights

atrocities against them. Under such situations Orford confidently argues that the

use of force is "necessary to address the problems of racist and ruthless dictators,

tribalism, ethnic tension, civil war and religious fundamentalism"16 In this regard,

noninterventionists contend that the use of force is illegal because no state has the

right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. They base their argument

on the importance to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity. Against this

claim Julius Stone says that "Article 2(4) does not forbid the threat or use of force

simpliciter; it forbids it only when directed against the territorial integrity or

15
Anne Orford, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human rights and the Use of Force in International Law
(USA: Cambridge University, 2003), 2008-209.
16
Ibid., 164
10
political independence of any state."17 Although there is a strong debate over the

issue of the use of force among humanitarian practitioners, some scholars firmly

believe that there are situations where the responsibility to protect civilians

transcends the principle of state sovereignty and legitimizes coercive actions. The

underlying idea here is that people are fundamentally entitled to universal rights

that come before the sovereignty of the state and which are deemed to be respected.

In this respect, the International Commission on Intervention and State

Sovereignty released its report which reveals that " State sovereignty implies

responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies

with the state itself', but, where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result

of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is

unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the

international responsibility to protect."18

One can look at the example of Uganda during the 1970s when massive

killing and terrible abuse of human rights were committed against Ugandan people.

Adi Amin`s dictatorial regime, which lasted for eight, years caused a total

breakdown of the rule of law and the killing of 300,000 people.19 Such massive

violations of human rights reached a critical stage which, in Michael Walzer`s

17
Julius Stone, Aggression and World Order: A Critique of United Nations‟ Theories of Aggression
(Stevens, London, 1958), p. 95.
18
“Responsibility to Protect” Report. ICISS, December 2001. available at: http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/ Commission-
Report.pdf, 13.(Accessed November 5th, 2010)
19
Sean D. Murphy, Humanitarian intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order, (USA: University of
Pennsylvania, 1996), P. 105.
11
terms, "shock the conscience of humanity."20 The disturbing and threatening

situation in Uganda was globally recognized as a serious humanitarian emergency,

which compelled Tanzania to intervene. It is important to note that Tanzania`s

military intervention was justified because it was carried out on the grounds of self-

defense and the perceived threat to peace and security of the region that Uganda

represented. It has to be said that Tanzania's intervention in Uganda was seen by

many as an effective humanitarian intervention. The fact that Amine was removed

from power helped end atrocities and restored the role of law in the country.

The last reason why I believe humanitarian intervention should be justified

is to raise awareness among nations of the world and the consequences of

committing crimes against humanity. This concept refers to making the public

aware that certain events are taking place and that they should be dealt with

seriously. When intervention occurs it serves as an alert to other states which

might want to violate or abuse the rights of their citizens. For example, if the

international community does not intervene when authoritarian governments

murder their citizens; other dictators might feel that they have freedom to do

whatever they want. If this happens, the prospect of peace and security becomes

bleak. Building a peaceful and safe world entails an international community

which is strictly responsive wherever oppressive governments commit crimes

20
Michael Walze, Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations,( London: Allen Lane, 1978),
P. 162.

12
against their citizens. Embedded in this principle is the idea that humanitarian

intervention will help build a world that is less anarchic but oriented towards

democracy and respect for human life.

Conclusion

Based on what has been said, it is important to say that humanitarian

military intervention is and will continue to be one of the most debated issues

among scholars of international relations. I believe that humanitarian intervention

is justified when massive violations of human rights take place. The cases discussed

throughout this paper illustrate this position. Furthermore, human rights are

universal and they are bound to be respected. States failing to fulfill this obligation

yields power to the international community to take action. This line of thinking is

defended by Richard Lillich when he says "Under Article 1.1 of the Charter, UN

member states have the responsibility to maintain international peace and security

and when the Security Council is unable to carry out its duties in this respect, the

onus is on member states to act and, therefore, the prohibition of force as outlined

in Article 2.4 is suspended."21 What one should understand is that inaction can be

costly in cases of abuse and massacre and the cases of Rwanda and Srebrenica

remain two important places where the international community had to act with

enough assertiveness.

21
Richard Lillich, „Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights‟, Iowa Law Review, 53(1967), pp. 325-51.
13
Bibliography

Article 1(4). UN Charter accessed from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

Albright, Madeleine. K., Enforcing International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
(American Society of International Law), Vol. 89, (APRIL 5-8, 1995), pp. 574-580
accessed at http://www.jstor.org /stable/ 25658981? origin=JSTOR-pdf

Amstutz, Mark R.International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics. Rowman
& Littlefield:USA, 2005.

Frane, Thomas, M. 'Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention,' in J. L.

Holzgrefe and RobertO. Keohane ed., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and
Political Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003), pp. 204-231.

Guraziu, Rudi. Is Humanitarian military intervention in the affairs of another state ever justified?
Accessed at http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot
/files/articlepdf/Is%20humanitarian %20military%20intervention
%20ever%20justified.pdf

Holzgrefe, L. J., 'The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,' in J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert

O. Keohane ed., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political
Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003), pp. 15-52.

Kabia, John M. Humanitarian Intervention and Conflict in West Africa: From Ecomog to Eomil
.U.K: Ashgate, 2009.

Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the United Nations, We the people: "The Role of The
United Nations on the 20st Century" (accessed 06 November 2010) available at
http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/ch3.pdf

Lillich, Richard, 'Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights', Iowa Law Review,
53(1967), pp. 290-314

Murphy, Sean D. Humanitarian intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order.
University of Pennsylvania: USA, 1996.

Michael Walze, Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. London:
Allen Lane, 1978.

14
Newman, Michael. Humanitarian Intervention: Confronting the contradictions. Columbia
University Press: New York, 2009.

Orford, Anne. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human rights and the Use of Force in
International Law.USA: Cambridge University, 2003.

Responsibility to Protect" Report. ICISS, December 2001. available at: http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/

Commission-Report.pdf, 13.(Accessed November 5th, 2010)

Stone, Julius. Aggression and World Order: A Critique of United Nations' Theories of
Aggression. Stevens, London, 1958.

Seybol, Talor. B. Humanitarian military intervention: the conditions for success and failure.
Oxford University Press: USA, 2007.

Tony, Blair, 'Statement on the Suspension of NATO Air Strikes against Yugoslavia', London, 10
June 1999, http://www.fco.gov.uk/news /newstext.asp?2536 (accessed 28 October 2010)

Wheeler, Nicholas J. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian in International Society. Oxford

University Press: New York, 2000.

15