Do states have a right to go to war to defend the citizens of (other) states against

their own government? What are the implications of your answer for the future of
the international world order of states? Illustrate your argument with reference to at
least two contemporary examples of actual or proposed humanitarian interventions. !

The importance of sovereignty in the 21st century has become an increasingly debated topic. Up
until the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, sovereignty was prised above all else (due to the
Westphalian Treaty of 1648). However due to the rise in interstate conflicts and cases of
mass human rights abuses committed against civilians - attitudes towards the inviolability of
sovereignty are being challenged. In theory, states should have the right to go into another
state in order to defend a population from its own government under the pretext of humanitarian intervention. When a state fails to protect its citizens from or itself perpetrates mass
human rights abuses - they should be considered a failed state and forfeit their sovereignty
privileges (Walzer 1977, p10). However if history has taught us anything, it is that ulterior
motives are often disguised by the virtuous cause of humanitarian intervention (German
2014, Youtube). In this essay we will discuss humanitarian intervention, its flaws, and
whether or not it should become a normalised response to unjust crimes committed against a
civilian population. While I acknowledge that humanitarian intervention (and furthermore
the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine) is in theoretical terms a just policy and cause for intervention, I will argue that there is currently no impartial body in the international community capable of determining when and how humanitarian intervention should be utilised. I
will begin by giving a brief outline regarding the significance of humanitarian intervention,
sovereignty, and R2P in the international arena. I will then utilise several main case studies Darfur, Iraq and Libya - to highlight the issues facing humanitarian intervention. The veto
power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the principle of proportionality in
Just War Theory, the question of imperialism, and the idea of a foreign power enforcing
peace onto another state are the main issues I will present against humanitarian intervention.
Finally I will close my argument by proposing a solution to such issues. I conclude that in
order to ensure stability in the international community while upholding the principles of
R2P, we must reject the use of military force under the pretence of humanitarian intervention
and give the International Criminal Court (ICC) authority over intervention proposals.

Firstly I shall give some background knowledge to and define the importance of sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, and R2P. Sovereignty was arguably first incepted at the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648 after the Thirty Year War (New World Encyclopaedia, 2014). It is defined as the ability to exercise control and authority over a population of people within defined borders, and involves policies of non-intervention and equality among states. Since
then, sovereignty has been prised with the upmost importance in maintaining global cohesion and stability within the political arena. However today the role of sovereignty in the
international community is under scrutiny as it is increasingly being used in order to prevent
outside powers from intervening in mass human rights abuses committed against civilians.
Humanitarian intervention is a challenge to sovereignty, which claims that sovereignty
rights are forfeited when a government fails to or is perpetrating crimes defined under R2P
(Doyle 2006, p.8). Crimes defined under the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (2001) include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement (UN Prevention of Genocide 2014) . In 2001 the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) released a report on the Responsibility to Protect
Doctrine in order to reshape the way we think about sovereignty and humanitarian intervention in the face of rising human right abuses committed within sovereign borders (ICISS
Report 2001). Previous UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan highlighted that states are now
widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples (2006, p.685), thus sovereignty involves a crucial element of responsibility, not simply authority. I agree that states
must realise and achieve this element of responsibility if they want to be respected as a sovereign territory - however I furthermore argue that we cannot enforce this responsibility using military force under the title humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention - if to
be successful - cannot involved military means, but can encompass all other forms of soft
power (I will discuss this further in my final paragraphs).
There are several issues with humanitarian intervention which I will discuss below. These include
the veto power of the UNSC, the principle of proportionality in Just War Theory, the question of imperialism, and the controversy of foreign powers enforcing peace and democracy
onto another state.
The UNSC has five permanent members - Russia, China, the USA, France and Britain - who
all hold veto power. If any power disagrees with a proposal for intervention, they can veto it

and the proposal will be dropped. All p5 members have used this power in order to protect
their personal agendas, which has often resulted in the allowance of mass human rights
abuses to take place. In the case of genocidal acts committed against the Darfuri people by
government sponsored militias (the Jinjaweed) starting in 2003, both China and Russia vetoed numerous resolutions which could have prevented further killings. China vetoed resolutions 1564, 1591, 1593, 1672 and 1706 (Irresolution 2008). The UN estimates that around
300,000 may have died since 2003 with 2.5 million people being subject to rape campaigns and 2.3 million living displaced (Thomas Reuters Foundation 2014). The veto power
of the UNSC is literally killing people (Sheeran 2014) which further enforces the need for
change. The UNSC should no longer be charged with the overseeing of intervention proposals. This responsibility should be handed over to the ICC.
In order for a war to be considered just it must satisfy both the requirements of jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Just War Theory criteria. Proportionality (under jus ad bellum)
states that the anticipated goods of waging a war must be proportionate or commensurate to
its expected evils(Brough, Lango & van der Linden 2007). Kofi Annan once said that
there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace (UN Press
1999). If history has taught us anything - it would tell us to disagree with this statement.
Alongside intellectual Noam Chomsky1 and activist Lindsey German2 (representative from

the Stop The War Coalition), I believe that foreign intervention in domestic affairs has in
more cases than not made matters worse. We can look to intervention examples in Kosovo
(1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014) to support this
stance. German argues that Western interventions in fore mostly Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
and Syria have lead to further destabilisation in the regions with no prospect for peace anytime soon (Head to Head 2014). If we take Libya for example- allied forces entered in 2011
with the mandate to take all necessary measuresto protect civilians (UN Resolution
1973, 2011, p.3). Yes the Gaddafi regime (which was perpetrating mass human rights violations against its citizens) was toppled allowing for a new form of government to take its
place. However if we look to Libya now, can we say that NATO and allied intervention was
1!

Noam Chomsky in Noam Chomsky on Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention (2011),

WilliamsCollege on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77U1tlAyWVA
2!

Linsdey German in Head to Head - Humanitarian intervention or imperialism? (2014), Al

Jazeera English on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XStlTddkHo4

a success? No. Alan Kupperman claims that Libya has not only failed to evolve into a
democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses
have increased severalfold (2015). After the rebel forces took power in late 2011 they began a campaign of reprisals against government supporters and other citizens of the Libyan
state. Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity (Kuperman 2015). And now in
the place of Gaddafi, are several radical splinter groups (including regional militias, Islamic
extremists, rebels, and regime loyalists) fighting for power; Libya is still as much of a mess
as ever(Taylor 2014). Kofi Annan claims that the international commitment to peace must
be just as strong as was the commitment to war (2006, p.687) - but this did not occur in
Libya. Western involvement has caused more damage than good, and the principle of proportionality (under jus ad bellum) has not been achieved.
Another issue facing humanitarian intervention is the accusation of modern day imperialism. In his
novel Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer claimed that he had not come across any cases where humanitarian motives are the soul reason for intervention; states dont send their
soldiers into other statesonly in order to save lives (p.101). Stop the War Coalition activist Linsdey German argues that humanitarian intervention masks ulterior motives, and
that powerful states use it as a false pre tense in order to gain regional influence and control
of resources (Head to Head, 2014). Let us look to the invasion of Iraq to discuss this matter.
In 2003 US and UK lead allied forces entered Iraq in order to find and destroy stockpiles of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (MacAskill & Borger 2004). While no such weapons
were found, the invasion - which Kofi Annan called illegal (2004) - did result in the toppling
of Saddam Hussains regime. The US claim that its invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive selfdefence (MacAskill & Borger 2004), but in his paper One War, Many Reasons: The US
Invasion of Iraq, Marcus Nikolas Heinrich argues that we cannot overlook - Iraqs oil fields
or President Bushs wish for a democracy domino effect throughout the Middle East to occur (2015). The Wests history in attempting to install democracies after their invasions of
other countries has a long track record. Which brings me to my next point.
Foreign powers cannot expect their forcing of democracy or peace onto another state to be successful or welcomed. It should be up to the people of this state to determine their own future.
Sovereign states by definition know no superiorsand accept no external

judgements(Walzer, p.289) and why should they have to listen to Western powers when
they tell them how to rule? The UN and its member-states do have a right to voice their concerns when a state is abusing its power as a sovereign ruler. But they dont have the right to
tell this state how to rule or which system of governance to use. (We could enter into an argument of cultural relativism here but for the purposes of this paper we wont). Kofi Annan
is correct in saying that after intervention has occurred international commitment to peace
must be just as strong as was the commitment to war (2006, p.687) - but Benjamin Friedman is just as correct in saying that the question of what to do (afterwards) is not up to
us (Youtube, 2014). External forces should help with relief efforts, the reconstruction of
cities, economic aid, and advisement and support. Ultimately though history has taught us
that external forces setting up new governments dont work. It needs to be the people who
solve this issue (Doyle 2006, p.3). If a developing country invaded Australia and claimed
that what we are doing to refugees is illegal, that we must stop it and change our policies there would be an outrage. So why do we think that we have the right to do this to others?
External forces attempting to install rule and order onto another state is a breach of their
sovereignty, and has evidently lead to further destabilisation (as explained above).
I have thus far demonstrated the issues with humanitarian intervention. We can see from the discussion above that the effects which these humanitarian interventions have on the international world order of states is catastrophic. Interstate conflicts have only increased, a
violent divide has been borne between the West and the Middle East, religious divisions
have become exacerbated, distrust between states remains high, and civilians continue to die
by the thousands as governments disagree over politics. States can no longer utilise military
force under a humanitarian intervention. The two cannot exist together. Humanitarian intervention needs to remain purely humanitarian - utilise trade, travel, arms, economic, and military sanctions (Doyle 2006, p.5). Provide aid and medical assistance to the civilians caught
in the cross fire. Admit refugees and assist those attempting to escape the conflict to live a
peaceful life. And most importantly, assist and see through the pursuit of peace through government talks and treaties. Furthermore, the UNSC needs to forfeit its authority over intervention proposals and hand it over to the ICC.
In this paper I have argued against the use of humanitarian intervention under international law. I
have demonstrated that due to the UNSC veto power, the proportionality principle of Just

War Theory and the allegation of imperialism - humanitarian intervention has been tarnished
beyond repair. In Just and Unjust Wars Michael Walzer stated that as with individuals, so
with sovereign states: there are things that we cannot do to them, even for their own ostensible good (1977, p.89), and this is correct. Military force can no longer accompany humanitarian intervention, just as the permanent five members of UNSC can no longer allow their
state agendas to defend perpetrators of crimes defined under R2P.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Annan, K 1938, Towards a New Definition of Sovereignty in G.M Reichberg, H. Syse and E.
Begby (eds), The Ethics of War, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, p.683-693.
Brough, M & Lango, J & van der Linden, H 2007, Rethinking the Just War Tradition, State University of New York Press, Albany, p.243-247.
Doyle, M 2006, Sovereignty and Humanitarian Military Intervention, Columbia University, p.
5-8.
Doyle, M in Don E. Sheid 2014, The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention, Winona State
University, Minnesota, p3.
Heinrich, M 2015, One War, Many Reasons: The US Invasion of Iraq, E-International Relations
Students, viewed on 19th April 2016, http://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/09/one-war-many-reasons-the-us-invasion-of-iraq/.
International Commission on Intervention and Sovereignty 2001, The Responsibility To Protect,
viewed on 5th April 2016, http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf.
Kuperman, A 2015, Obamas Libya Debacle, Foreign Affairs, viewed on 25th April 2016, https://
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle.
MacAskill, E & Borger, J 2004, Iraq War was illegal and breached UN Charter, says Annan, The
Guardian, viewed on 25th April 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/
iraq.iraq.
New World Encyclopedia 2015, Peace of Westphalia, viewed on 1st May 2016, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Peace_of_Westphalia#Significance_in_international_relations_theory.
Prendergast, J & Sullivan, D 2008, Irresolution: The U.N. Security Council on Darfur, Enough,
viewed on 25th April 2016, http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/irresolution-un-security-council-darfur.

Sheeran, S 2014, The U.N. Security Council veto is literally killing people, The Washington Post,
viewed on 25th April 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/
2014/08/11/the-un-security-council-veto-is-literally-killing-people/.
Taylor, A 2014, Would Libya have been better off if Muammar Gaddafi had been captured?, The
Guardian, viewed on 25th April 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/
muammar-gaddafi-death-impact-libya.
Thomas Reuters Foundation News 2014, Darfur Conflict, viewed on 24th April 2016, http://
news.trust.org//spotlight/Darfur-conflict.
United Nations Office Of The Special Advisor On The Prevention Of Genocide 2014, The Responsibility to Protect, viewed on 22nd April 2016, http://www.un.org/press/en/
1999/19990920.sgsm7136.html.
United Nations 2011, Resolution 1973, United Nations Security Council, viewed on 29th April
2016, http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311UNSCR-1973.pdf.
Walzer, M 1977, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, Basic
Books, New York, p.10-289.
YouTube 2011, Noam Chomsky on Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention, viewed on 1st May
2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77U1tlAyWVA.
Youtube 2014, Did Military Intervention in Libya Succeed? (Benjamin Friedman), viewed on
27th April 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrgxkl0DNaM.
YouTube 2014, German, L in Head to Head - Humanitarian Intervention or Imperialism?, viewed
on 29th April 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XStlTddkHo4.