- Created by: KDallers-
- Created on: 15-05-19 15:45
History + Introduction to Humanitarian Interventio
What should we do to answer the question "WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP HARMING OTHERS?" (Orford)
- Intervention is coercive interference in the internal affairs of another state; humanitarian implies this is done 'for the sake of humanity' - generally MILITARILY, but can be in various ways
- COLONIALIS - the start of intervention through 'Christianisation' and invasion; spread to the UN in 1950s with 'peacekeeping'; only in SMALLER NATIONS during the Cold War due to the heavily polarised political climate - SECURITY COUNCIL would not allow otherwise
- Had the legal basis of the UN Charter Chapter 1 - Vietnam involved in Cambodia 1978, Tanzaznia/Uganda 1979
- POST-COLD WAR - now there is an international community, and a movement away from TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY and towards INTERNATIONALISATION and 'human security' - eroding the princple of the Westphalian Agreement 1648
- Expanding the Brezhnev and Reagan Doctrines of the Cold War; the 1990s was the 'age of liberal interventionism' - democratic nations now believing in LIBERALISATION and spread of 'LIBERAL VALUES' following the END OF HISTORY - Fukuyama - about interdependence now.
Legal Arguments re Humanitarian Intervention
Founded on the principles of the 1999 BLAIR DOCTRINE - must be: - consensual, - a last resort, - likely to succeed, - long-term focus, and - in the national interest
- Developed into the Candian-UN led RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT 2001, which limited intervention to 'genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity' - this would become the INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BASIS in 2005 and override the UN Charter
- WHY? Argued that intervention guaranteed HUMAN RIGHTS and peace and security - this was more important than TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY (Reisman, Damrosch)
- Bruno Simma and Antonio Cassese - argued it was ILLEGAL, but LEGTIMATE - Kosovo 1999 - Lled to R2P 2001; Blair argued it was supported by 'universal law' (essentially human rights) - Beard; a METAPHYSICAL explanation as intervention represents Western values
- REALIST - about self-interest and little else; only about obtaining resources; CARTY - 'no assertion of a place for legitimate authority in the international order'
- DECISIONISM - C.Schmitt - a state protecting its citizens, even through totalitarianism - there is one 'sovereign' which leads this - intervention is rare in this scenario; - DEMOCRATIC - Heller - can intervene, but only with democratic legitimacy - political decision
Examples of Humanitarian Intervention
TIMOR-LESTE - became decolonised in 1975, but independence led by 'communist-influenced' FRETILIN - Indonesian/Western-backed invasion took Timor for Indonesia; Australians wanted resources so signed 1989 Timor Gap Treaty; by 1998 - violence after Indonesian autonomy proposals, led to UN-intervention and STATE BUILDING - this was a difficult process (Strohmeyer); by 2001, newly independent, but more issues in 2006, leading to 2ND UN INTERVENTION - in a 'failed state', but was this destabilising and UNNECESSARY?
Other examples of intervention:
- Darfur in Sudan - not much UN intervention; but, there WAS IN KOSOVO 1999 (NATO) - why Kosovo and not Sudan - more about Western values?
- Questionable pretext of 'humanitarian intervention' in Kenya, Myanmar, South Ossetia, Libya and Ivory Coast - is this just about WESTERN IMPERIALISM?
- Actual intervention - Iraq 1991, Somalia 1992, Rwanda 1994 and Kosovo 1999 - beneficial?
- IRAQ 2003 - not justified by the UN, but led by US and UK on basis of 'evidence of WMDs' - controversial and led to backlash; has this DAMAGED the POLITICAL PRINCIPLES of the R2P and 'international community'
Other Legal and Moral Arguments
Democracy - does this IGNORE the BRUTALITY of intervention? There is no other alternative, but it often INCREDIBLY DAMAGING - this is not in line with BEARD'S METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT
- SCEPTICS - argue for REALISM and see the West as self-interest; also DECISIONISTS who argue that the international community cannot 'invade' and act as a 'sovereign'
- Does this lead to AUTHORITARIANISM? R2P is democratic, and argues there must be a 'commmon perception of legitimacy', but should it promote ORDER AND AUTHORITY following an invasion? Tried to do this in TIMOR but FAILED 2006
- MORAL ARGUMENTS: - realist; nations are invading to accumulate power, when it should be to promote the good of humanity
- TESÓN - in a globalised world, human rights violations have international repercussions; should intervent to PREVENT this becoming reality globally
- Is intervention really 'humanitarian' or not? Western personnel are NEVER RISKED; so why are CIVILIANS KILLED instead? Not very 'human'
It is now the norm in line with GLOBALISATION and WESTERN LIBERAL VALUES - what are the views of this from a THEORETICAL PESPECTIVE?
- LIBERALS - support intervention; KANT. - 'human rights are universal' - see intervening as the manifestation of this; sacrifice sovereignty to promote these - the international community has a RESPONSIBILITY to get involved if the state fails to do so - IRAQ 2003
- SOLIDARISTS - R2P should be promoted by society; if restoring order is best attempted by military intervention, then this should be the way forward - nothing should stop it
- REALISM - states are self-serving, and intervention is a GUISE for accumulating power - it increases the likelihood of conflict, and is about survival and self-help in terms of security dilemmas - the 1989 TIMOR GAP TREATY
- MARXISM - intervention is about oppression and reifying WORLD SYSTEMS POSITIONS (Wallerstein's theory); using morality as a GUISE to reify ECONOMIC IMBALANCES
- POSTCOLONIALISM - intervention promotes neocolonialism and Western values as the only way - prevents weak nations from following their own path, away from 'Western values' - Fanon 'colonisation of the mind'; MORALITY IS NOT THE REALITY
Criticisms of Humanitarian Intervention
1) A CLOAK FOR IMPERIALISM - sums up the Marxist and postcolonial perspectives; humanitarian intervention is ECONOMICALLY and CULTURALLY imperialistic in terms of Western values and systems
2) NO INTERNATIONAL LAW BASIS - the R2P is only reliant on the UN Security Council; if they do not agree, there is no basis in international law for intervention; however, nations do it anyway - IRAQ 2003
3) NOT HUMANITARIAN - realists/Marxists - nations have self-interested, ulterior motives to intervene - 2003 IRAQ, 1989 TIMOR GAP TREATY
4) SHOULD STATES BEHAVE IN THIS WAY? Undermining the principle of Westphalian Territorial Sovereignty dating back to 1648 - the state should NOT be sacrificing lives for issues UNRELATED to them
5) DOESN'T WORK - breeds instability, authoritarianism and 'failed states' like Timor, Iraq and Libya
- A process encouraged by globalisation, but mass civilian deaths are hardly 'humanitarian'
Key Thinkers in Humanitarian Intervention
Schmitt - decisionism
Blair; Annan; Clinton; Bush - political supporters of the R2P
Reisman; Damrosch; Tesón - counter-restrictionists supports H.I
Heller - supports H.I on democratic grounds
Simma, Cassese, J.Beard - metaphysical grounds that H.I is legitimate
Carty - realist view of H.I
Cody, Strohmeyer - view of restructuring in Timor; H.I breeds unwanted consequences
Fukuyama - End of History Thesis
Wallerstein - World Systems Theory (Marxist, postcolonial)
Orford; Bellamy and Wheeler - textbook authors