英语论文网

have been accepted as examples of modern, legitimate conflicts, the status of humanitarian intervention is subject to considerable debate. We have explored that even within use of force arising out of self-defence claims there have been instances of illegitimate actions. This shows that the law itself is secure and adaptable but its enforcement is weak or 'illusory'. Humanitarian intervention is one of those issues which add further fuel to this fire because of state practice.

Support for humanitarian intervention relating to suffering of persons (not necessarily nationals of the intervening) situated within another state is permissible in 'strictly defined situations'. [26] But it found more in the purview of customary law and not within the traditional interpretations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Two most pertinent examples of state practice we find are Iraq and the Kosovo crisis. Immediately after the First Gulf War, Saddam Hussein turned his forces on the Kurdish and Shiite populations. The gravity of the situation was noted by the Security Council as well in Resolution 688 (1991). [27] Even though there was no clear authorization from the UN, the US along with UK and France imposed 'no-fly zones' over the country citing this Resolution. UK argued that such measures were justified because of 'overwhelming humanitarian necessity'.

The Kosovo conflict in 1999 is cited as the first real humanitarian war. [28] The justification used by NATO to intervene was humanitarian intervention even though there was no UN backing. UK Secretary of Defence George Robertson commented that in exceptional circumstances, military action can be taken to avoid 'a humanitarian catastrophe'. As Malcolm Shaw opines that it is not entirely possible to fully characterise the legal situation owing to the fact that the NATO actions were neither endorsed nor condemned, the status of humanitarian intervention with regards to use of force is still unclear. [29] But Carlo Focarelli states that there are far too many ambiguities at the present moment to formally incorporate humanitarian intervention alongside self-defence and UN provisions. [30] Furthermore, he lends credence to the oft-cited view that Responsibility to Protect Doctrine is furthered essentially by powerful states and there is increasing resentment over this among developing nations; he points to the fact that countries like Egypt, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, Tanzania have asserted that this doctrine favours more powerful states while countries like France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Norway have upheld the doctrine. [31] It can be concluded that the concerns of developing nations demonstrate the fear that acceptance of this doctrine may possibly make the law overly 'illusory'.

However, the current intervention in Libya can be termed as the first UN Security Council backed humanitarian intervention. Resolution 1973 (2011) authorises 'a no-fly zone over Libya and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians'. [32] Due to this the NATO members are employing air forces. Empirical scholarly opinion with regards to international law is yet to emerge but the situation has certainly changed because the UN Security Council sanctioned this intervention. This does make the intervention legitimate but the legal status of humanitarian intervention with regards to use of force has surely moved towards a greater acceptance.