I have a right to... | 大象传媒 World Service

Article 28: Right to social and international order permitting these freedoms to be realised

Case Study: MILITARY INTERVENTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

In the post-Cold War era, there have been increasing calls on the international community, particularly the United Nations, to resolve conflicts and prevent humanitarian disasters around the world.
In the 1990s, a series of military interventions were carried out in the name of human rights.
In 1999, the first so-called 'humanitarian war' was carried out in the former Yugoslavia by NATO forces without the formal support of the UN.
New mechanisms are being discussed which could help world leaders judge when military intervention is justified, but the future of humanitarian intervention is uncertain.

Principle of Non-intervention

The principle of non-intervention, the idea that states should refrain as much as possible from intervening in the affairs of other states, has long been considered an important rule of international relations.

The United Nations Charter prohibits states from attacking other states. Only the Security Council can authorise the use of force in order to protect international peace and security.

What happens, however, when people in one state are being deprived of their fundamental human rights, which are upheld in numerous UN treaties?

Should any actor that is willing and able to intervene militarily on their behalf be allowed to do so?

Who has the authority to authorise such an intervention?

Is it justified to use violence to promote human rights?

These questions came to the fore in the 1990s, after the Cold War era, when human rights violations in several places prompted military interventions.

Right to Intervention

The idea of a right to humanitarian intervention was pioneered in the 1960s by the French humanitarian organisation M茅decins sans Fronti猫res (MSF). When there are grave human rights violations, MSF argued, international actors have a right to intervene to stop them.

While states have long launched military interventions against other states, they have only recently begun to justify their actions in humanitarian terms.

The 1990s witnessed an unprecedented number of interventions ostensibly carried out in defence of human rights.

Military interventions were justified on human rights grounds to varying degrees in Iraq in 1990-1991, Somalia in 1991-1993, East Timor and Sierra Leone in 1999, and the former Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s.

World leaders, notably US president Bill Clinton and UK prime minister Tony Blair, spoke of the emergence a new world order where foreign policy decisions are motivated by a fundamental belief in universal human rights.

Sceptics, however, argued that states only intervene when it is in their national interest to do so.

'Humanitarian War'

In 1999, NATO launched a six-week bombing campaign against Serbia in response to alleged atrocities government forces had begun to commit in the province of Kosovo.

The military campaign was designed to prevent a humanitarian disaster - the forcible expulsion of Kosovo's majority Albanian community by Serb forces.

The first so-called 'humanitarian war' was controversial because it was not sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution as the Charter mandates.

This was because two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, were opposed to any intervention in Kosovo. They argued that the Western powers were using human rights as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

NATO went ahead with the campaign anyway. Serbia ultimately surrendered and Kosovo became independent.

By taking military action to protect one community, however, the rights of another suffered. The 23,000 bombs NATO dropped on Serbia and Kosovo during the 11-week war killed an estimated 500 civilians.

New Mechanisms

Nowadays, the attention has turned back to the United Nations. The treaties under which it operates already provide for armed action if the Security Council approves - and there are now proposals for some kind of stand-by army.

Few doubt that a reformed UN is the one body in the world with the moral authority to fight wars on behalf of humanity and thus create the conditions envisaged in Article 28.

With almost limitless calls on its time and resources, however, the question remains whether the world powers will be willing to provide the money and the troops to fund future UN missions wherever they are needed.

The lack of military intervention in the conflict zones in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among many others, shows that some states are still reluctant to intervene in the affairs of other states, regardless of evidence of human rights violations.

	大象传媒 Sites: External Sites: The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites		Article 28: Right to social and international order permitting these freedoms to be realised Read this article in full Case Study: MILITARY INTERVENTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS In the post-Cold War era, there have been increasing calls on the international community, particularly the United Nations, to resolve conflicts and prevent humanitarian disasters around the world. In the 1990s, a series of military interventions were carried out in the name of human rights. In 1999, the first so-called 'humanitarian war' was carried out in the former Yugoslavia by NATO forces without the formal support of the UN. New mechanisms are being discussed which could help world leaders judge when military intervention is justified, but the future of humanitarian intervention is uncertain. Principle of Non-intervention The principle of non-intervention, the idea that states should refrain as much as possible from intervening in the affairs of other states, has long been considered an important rule of international relations. The United Nations Charter prohibits states from attacking other states. Only the Security Council can authorise the use of force in order to protect international peace and security. What happens, however, when people in one state are being deprived of their fundamental human rights, which are upheld in numerous UN treaties? Should any actor that is willing and able to intervene militarily on their behalf be allowed to do so? Who has the authority to authorise such an intervention? Is it justified to use violence to promote human rights? These questions came to the fore in the 1990s, after the Cold War era, when human rights violations in several places prompted military interventions. Right to Intervention The idea of a right to humanitarian intervention was pioneered in the 1960s by the French humanitarian organisation M茅decins sans Fronti猫res (MSF). When there are grave human rights violations, MSF argued, international actors have a right to intervene to stop them. While states have long launched military interventions against other states, they have only recently begun to justify their actions in humanitarian terms. The 1990s witnessed an unprecedented number of interventions ostensibly carried out in defence of human rights. Military interventions were justified on human rights grounds to varying degrees in Iraq in 1990-1991, Somalia in 1991-1993, East Timor and Sierra Leone in 1999, and the former Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. World leaders, notably US president Bill Clinton and UK prime minister Tony Blair, spoke of the emergence a new world order where foreign policy decisions are motivated by a fundamental belief in universal human rights. Sceptics, however, argued that states only intervene when it is in their national interest to do so. 'Humanitarian War' In 1999, NATO launched a six-week bombing campaign against Serbia in response to alleged atrocities government forces had begun to commit in the province of Kosovo. The military campaign was designed to prevent a humanitarian disaster - the forcible expulsion of Kosovo's majority Albanian community by Serb forces. The first so-called 'humanitarian war' was controversial because it was not sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution as the Charter mandates. This was because two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, were opposed to any intervention in Kosovo. They argued that the Western powers were using human rights as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other countries. NATO went ahead with the campaign anyway. Serbia ultimately surrendered and Kosovo became independent. By taking military action to protect one community, however, the rights of another suffered. The 23,000 bombs NATO dropped on Serbia and Kosovo during the 11-week war killed an estimated 500 civilians. New Mechanisms Nowadays, the attention has turned back to the United Nations. The treaties under which it operates already provide for armed action if the Security Council approves - and there are now proposals for some kind of stand-by army. Few doubt that a reformed UN is the one body in the world with the moral authority to fight wars on behalf of humanity and thus create the conditions envisaged in Article 28. With almost limitless calls on its time and resources, however, the question remains whether the world powers will be willing to provide the money and the troops to fund future UN missions wherever they are needed. The lack of military intervention in the conflict zones in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among many others, shows that some states are still reluctant to intervene in the affairs of other states, regardless of evidence of human rights violations.