Introduction
The global order led by the United Nations Organization (UNO) is meant to be a family of nations where each nation’s territorial integrity is respected and honoured. Article 2 Chapter 1 of the UN Charter state that the “Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members”. This means that each nation’s sovereignty is guaranteed by the UN Charter and the UN has to work with the goal of protecting national sovereignty. Furthermore, the UN was set up to prevent major wars like the World War II which caused the organization to be formed to promote world peace. That is why Article 2 Chapter 3 of the UN Charter states that all nations must resolve disputes through the use of peaceful means. These two provisions imply that no nation of the world can justify its invasion of another for any purpose. This is because such an act will be viewed as incompatible with the UN Charter.
In spite of this, a popular exception to the fundamental principles of the United Nations is humanitarian intervention. This seem to be the only valid defence that is compatible with the UN Charter which can be invoked in the event of invading another country. Humanitarian intervention is defined as the use of “military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed”. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the reasons for and against humanitarian intervention within the system of global governance.
The essence of the Treaty of Westphalia was to promote peace and enhance coordination amongst a “concert of nations”. This was because nations realised the need for the formation of states with recognised boundaries that would work for the betterment of their citizens. Thus, the moral obligation of the nation-state is to ensure that it protects citizens and creates an environment whereby citizens can achieve the highest and best results from their effort. Thus, in situations where a nation does not have a government that achieves this fundamental end, it is apparent that the state has failed to meet its fundamental goal. This implies that the international community must find a way of getting specified nations to live up to their obligations by righting their wrongs.
Therefore, numerous mechanisms in the international community are used to get nations to seek the best interest of their citizens. However, in some situations, the misconduct and failures of nations are so extreme that the international community cannot stand by idly. There is the need for the international community to move to intervene to protect the fundamental goals the state must play for its people. In a period of anarchy and severe destruction and wars which threaten to cause large numbers of deaths and mass destruction of property, players in the international community will be justified to enter other nations as a special exemption in international law. This happens where there is reason to believe that the situation in one country could lead to a large number of deaths and the destruction of property. An example in this situation is in the case of Bangladesh which declared independence from Pakistan and there was reason to believe that the Pakistani government could intervene and cause massive bloodshed in 1976. On this grounds, India was permitted by the international community to intervene and protect human lives and property. Another example is the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda with the view of overthrowing the government of Idi Amin which had caused so much atrocity and had lost legitimacy. Other forms of interventions did not include the stationing of troops (which is now known as “boots on the ground”) but various forms of aerial bombardment to help troops with an agenda of correcting a wrong system to gain foothold. This includes the case of Kosovo in 1993 and the Libyan bombardment in 2011 which led to the killing of Gaddafi.
Politically, this is necessary when the government or sovereign authority of the nation loses its ability to maintain law and order to preserve human lives. Thus, there is the need for a form of foreign intervention to ensure that the most basic obligations of the nation is fulfilled to protect the citizens and ensure a sane and logical system of dealing with war and the use of violence and force. This is important because there are some weak states and failed states that are very volatile and can easily descend into destructive situations. An example is the case of Rwanda in 1993/94 where members of rival ethnic groups slaughtered large numbers of each other in a genocide that the government had no practical power to avoid. Such situations require humanitarian intervention.
Reason against Humanitarian Intervention
On the other hand, humanitarian intervention is against the very essence of the United Nations and international order. This is because every nation has the right to run its own affairs and no nation must interfere unfairly and unreasonably in another nation’s affairs. Allowing one nation to intervene in the affairs of another in the name of humanitarian intervention opens a floodgate that can be abused in the international governance system. This is because almost every state has some shortcomings in protecting human rights and achieving the goals of honouring the needs of its citizens. Therefore, if the concept of humanitarian intervention is not limited, any country will be justified in invading another and using force to destroy them.
The pattern of dishonouring the need for respecting state sovereignty has been abused by dominant nations in the past two decades when they used various excuses to invade other nations. A case in point is the case of Iraq and Afghanistan which were invaded on the grounds that they had failed states and weak governments that threatened the security of the world. Hence, they were attacked because they had to change and modify their structures. This turned out to be problematic.
Socially, the possibility of humanitarian intervention creates a universalist global order where some dominant nations dictate the right social and political structures for weaker nations. This is because global standards seem to be set by these powerful nations. And if the possibility of invasion and humanitarian intervention is judged by these global powers, it means weaker nations will have no choice, but dismantle their own traditional institutions and set up foreign-backed institutions that might hardly work to meet its goals. This leads to problems with governance and leadership that could in itself lead to a major crisis.
Furthermore, it is apparent that humanitarian intervention is strongly influenced by realism and this is mainly based on economic factors. Many nations that are invaded are nations that have economic or geostrategic benefits to stronger nations. Hence, the use of humanitarian intervention is selective and open to abuse by dominant powers to pursue their imperialist ambitions and goals.
Conclusion
Humanitarian intervention is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the United Nations. However, it might be necessary to prevent widespread abuse of human rights and serious damage to property. In spite of this, there are some inherent issues like opportunistic use and abuse to cause social and political problems for weaker nations.
References
Azzam, A. T., 2012. The Arab World: Facing the Challenge of the New Millenium. 3rd ed. New York: IB Tauris.
Dickerson, M. O., Flanagan, T. & O'Neill, B., 2014. An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Luterbacher, U. & Sprinz, D. F., 2014. International Relations and Global Climate Change. Boston: MIT Press.
Marjanovic, M., 2011. Is Humanitarian War the Exception?. [Online] Available at: https://mises.org/library/humanitarian-war-exception[Accessed 7 April 2016].
Von Bogdandy, A., Wolfrum, R. & Philipp, C. E., 2015. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
