Baylis,, Smith and

d Owens: T
The Globa
alization of World Pol itics 6e
Re
evision guiide
Cha
apter 31: Humanitar
H
rian interv
vention in world pol itics

Co
ounter-restrrictionists argue
a
in fa
avour of a legal right of
o humanittarian interrvention
bassed on inte
erpretation
ns of the UN
N Charter and custom
mary internnational law
w.

The claims fo
or a moral duty of humanitarian
n intervention stem fro
rom the bas
sic
pro
oposition th
hat all indiv
viduals are
e entitled to
o a minimu
um level off protection
n from
harm by virtu
ue of their common
c
h umanity.

ates will no
ot intervene
e for prima
arily human
nitarian purposes.
Sta

Sta
ates should
d not place
e their citizzens in harms way in
n order to pprotect fore
eigners.

A legal right of
o humanittarian interrvention wo
ould be vulnerable too abuse as states
ma
ay employ humanitarian claims to cloak th
he pursuit of
o self-inteerest.

Sta
ates will ap
pply princip
ples of hum
manitarian interventio
on selectiveely.

In tthe absencce of conse

ensus abo
out what prrinciples sh
hould guidee humanita
arian
inte
ervention, a right of humanitaria
h
an interven
ntion would
d underminne internattional
ord
der.

umanitarian
n intervention will alw
ways be ba
ased on the
e cultural ppreferences
s of the
Hu
pow
werful.

w
described as a g
golden era of humanitarian activvism because of a
The 1990s were
of humanittarian interrventions.
dra
amatic incrrease in the
e number o

Although som
me interven
ntions were
e motivate
ed by huma
anitarian cooncerns, others
we
ere not. Mo
ost interven
ntions were
e prompted
d by mixed
d motives.

The legality and

a legitim
macy of hum
manitarian interventio
on remain hotly conte
ested, but
an
norm of inte
ervention authorized
a
by the Se
ecurity Council emergged in the 1990s.
1

Inte
erventionss tended to be more ssuccessful in stopping immediaate killing and
a less
succcessful in
n building lo
ong-term p
peace.

Oxford Universityy Press, 2014.

Baylis,, Smith and

d Owens: T
The Globa
alization of World Pol itics 6e
Re
evision guiide

The responssibility to prrotect swittches the fo

ocus from a debate aabout sove
ereignty
verrsus huma
an rights to a discuss ion of how
w best to protect endaangered pe
eople.

The responsiibility to pro

otect was a
adopted by
y states at the 2005 W
World Sum
mmit and
is ccommonly understoo
od as comp
prising thre
ee pillars.

Sta
ates largelyy endorsed
d the Secre
etary-Gene
erals apprroach to im
mplementing the
ressponsibilityy to protectt (RtoP) an
nd the princ
ciple has been
b
used in several different
setttings since
e 2005.

The use of fo
orce for pro
otection pu
urposes continues to be highly ccontrovers
sial, as the
2011 interven
ntion in Lib
bya shows.. Respons
sibility whils
st protectinng was a concept
c
intrroduced to
o bridge the
e divides o
on this issu
ue.

Oxford Universityy Press, 2014.