|
...UN Charter and related instruments are examined, together with the arguments in support of such interventions. That state sovereignty protects human rights by reducing the incidence of war and promoting self-determination and that military intervention can result in atrocities are often overlooked. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and the first Gulf war are among the examples discussed.
Keywords: cold war, globalisation, humanitarian intervention, imperialism, international law, self-determination, UN
**********
Every so often an event of epic proportions compels a reexamination of conventional doctrines of international law ... In the post-Cold War world ... a new standard of intolerance for human misery and human atrocities has taken hold ... There is a new commitment--expressed in both moral and legal terms--to alleviate the suffering of oppressed or devastated peoples. (1)
David Scheffer
'General' enthusiasm over the prospects of imperialism, furious defence of it and painting it in the brightest colours--such are the signs of the times. (2)
V.I. Lenin
**********
That statement of Lenin's, made eighty-seven years ago, has as much relevance today as it had during that tumultuous period of history. Imperialism is alive now, as alive as it was in 1917, disguised in many bright colours. And the phenomenon labelled 'humanitarian intervention' by its supporters is one of the 'brightest colours' given to modern-day imperialism. Despite the claims of a 'new standard of intolerance for human misery and human atrocities' since the end of the cold war, nothing has changed since then to indicate that either 'human misery' or 'human atrocities' are taken any more seriously by powerful nations than they were during it. In fact, the new 'war on terror' being waged by the US seems to mark a regression in terms of the 'commitment to alleviate the suffering of oppressed or devastated peoples'. The prevalence of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention comes not from a renewed commitment to human rights, but from a need for a new pretext for imperialist interventions and to put a 'humanitarian' face on the war on terror. The doctrine is not even that new; throughout history, nations have claimed that they have intervened in other nations for the benefit of the other's people. (3) It should also be stated at the outset that, although there are some interventions justified as 'humanitarian' that have been carried out without US participation, the vast majority in the near future will occur with the participation, or at least support, of the US. Not only is it the world's sole existing super-power with the largest military in the world, the history of the last sixty or so years demonstrates its readiness to intervene in other nations. Within the context of the war on terror, the likelihood of such interventions around the world is even greater than before.
Definition of 'humanitarian intervention'
There are two fundamentally different paradigms of activities that have been termed 'humanitarian intervention'. The first, the 'classic' paradigm, involves the use of force by one or more states in the territory of another for the declared purpose of protecting the latter's people from human rights violations. But even within this basic paradigm, different commentators view what constitutes a humanitarian intervention differently. Some view it broadly, as the use of force by one state in another state to protect anyone, including its own citizens, from human rights violations. Others would restrict it to actions involving the use of force by one state in the territory of another in order to protect indigenous populations, and would define acts intended to protect nationals of the intervening state as acts of self-defence, not 'humanitarian intervention'. (4)
The second paradigm of activities defined, at least by some, as acts of humanitarian intervention are those that involve the direct provision of humanitarian services (e.g. medical care, food, shelter) in the territory of other nations without the consent of the recipient nation. Such activities may be undertaken either by a state or by non-state actors --examples would be the intervention of the International Committee of the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders in a nation suffering a humanitarian crisis, without the explicit consent of the host state. Such activities fall under the definition of humanitarian intervention, supporters argue, because they involve the intervention of outside parties in a state without its consent, with the stated purpose of preventing human rights abuses and alleviating a humanitarian crisis. (5)
My analysis here, however, is restricted to the classic definition of 'humanitarian intervention'; to reiterate, the use of force by one or more states in another state for the declared purpose of protecting indigenous people there from human rights violations. Such actions are, in my view, fundamentally different from others that are sometimes brought under the rubric of humanitarian intervention. Intervention to protect one's own nationals in another state involves a clear level of self-interest and such self-interest, it is claimed, does not apply in cases where states pursue an intervention to protect people indigenous to another state. Moreover, interventions aimed solely at the provision of humanitarian assistance do not have the same implications concerning state sovereignty; the state carrying out such an intervention has less leverage over the power structure of the state in which the intervention occurs. Although such activity could be analysed as a form of imperialism, including it under the 'classic' definition of 'humanitarian intervention' would unnecessarily cloud the issue.
Defence of 'humanitarian intervention'
When building a defence of classic humanitarian intervention, some commentators argue that there is a tension between two fundamental values underlying the existing system of international law--state sovereignty and human rights. This tension is best reflected in the UN Charter, which includes provisions protecting both state sovereignty and human rights. The closest thing that the international community has to a formal constitution, the Charter undergirds all international law. (6) There are 189 parties to it; widely recognised as part of customary international law, it is binding even on non-member states. (7)
Protection of sovereignty was at the heart of the formation of the UN. After the turmoil of both the first and second world wars, the states that convened to create the UN were 'determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. (8) The UN Charter codified and strengthened the existing international system based on the sovereign equality of states in order to reduce the threat of war and international strife. It is worth noting here that this was a period in which most of the world was still in the grip of colonialism, in the form of direct political control of nations by foreign powers. However, the principle of national sovereignty was to prove important in the struggle for national liberation and, in a sense, was a precursor to popular sovereignty. Newly independent nation states were seen as the expression of the popular will and thus given legitimacy.
But the need to protect human rights, it is argued, conflicts with state sovereignty; an argument that has gained momentum in recent years. Before analysing in more detail those sections of the Charter that outline the basis for national sovereignty and protection of human rights, it is necessary to understand something of the impact that globalisation has had on the concepts of both national sovereignty and human rights. Why is it that the balance has shifted from state sovereignty to human rights? The answer, in my view, is that while, in essence, the thrust of imperialism may not have changed since the founding of the UN, the nature of national sovereignty has. Nation states, especially in the less developed world, have been increasingly limited in their capacity to respond to the popular will.
Externally, the imposition of neoliberal economic policies and the enforcement of structural adjustment programmes, the opening up of national economies to 'free trade' and the unmitigated exploitation of resources have rendered such nation states vulnerable to the depredations of globalisation, better termed corporate globalisation. Internally, this has put them at risk of social, structural and economic breakdown; susceptible to conflict over borders; to armed opposition groups; to struggles over resources; to civil wars. All these factors combined mean that such nation states have frequently failed to maintain the rule of law and a monopoly of legitimate violence across their territories or to deliver sustained economic development for their people. For these reasons, the gap between popular sovereignty and national sovereignty has grown ever larger as nation states either use repression to maintain power against popular will, or collapse into smaller ethnically-defined territories, liable to conflict and instability. As a result, sovereignty is less and less seen as resting in nation states and more and more seen as resting in 'peoples' themselves. And the notion of human rights has correspondingly risen in importance.
Hence, the argument has gained ground that, in certain cases, the only, or at least best, way to protect human rights is for the international community to violate the sovereignty of a particular state in order to protect the human rights of people within that state. If sovereignty is taken seriously, say supporters of this viewpoint, then human rights cannot be fully protected and vice versa. One commentator goes so far as to claim: 'What is certain is that a prohibition on unilateral interventions for human rights amounts to a declaration that human rights do not exist.' (9) But what does the UN Charter have to say about the balance between sovereignty and human rights?
Protection of sovereignty in the UN Charter
According to Article 2(1), 'The Organization [UN] is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members'. (10) This makes it clear that sovereignty is at the peak of values protected by the UN and the current system of international law. The UN Charter has several specific provisions that protect national sovereignty and, concomitantly, protect nations from the use of force by other states that would interfere with their sovereignty. These are as follows. Article 2(3) states that: 'All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.'...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Race and Class
The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East., July 01, 2004
Wired for war: military technology and the politics of fear.(Commentar..., July 01, 2004
Anti-Semitism or anti-criticism? *., July 01, 2004
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
