Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention refers to the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens. There is no one standard or legal definition of humanitarian intervention. Differences in definition include variations in whether humanitarian interventions is limited to instances where there is an absence of consent from the host state; whether humanitarian intervention is limited to punishment actions; and whether humanitarian intervention is limited to cases where there has been explicit UN Security Council authorization for action.

There is, however, a general consensus on some of its essential characteristics: Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state. The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states’ strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

Is military intervention compatible with upholding human rights? Arguments forArguments against

For: UDHR: ‘it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.’ Against: Human rights and peace are natural allies. UDHR understands human rights as ‘the foundation of …… peace in the world’

A history of humanitarian intervention Up to WWII Cold War

John Major The first Gulf War was in response to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussain. Realist response to ensure stability in the Middle East. This was not humanitarian intervention. Rwanda History Annotate article admit-its-mistakes jphttp://news.scotsman.com/rwanda/Britain-must- admit-its-mistakes jp

Blair and ‘Blair doctrine’ Blair, Rwanda, ethical foreign policy and ‘international community’ The+Blair+Doctrine[1].pdf Annotate

To what extent was the ‘Blair doctrine’ followed during Blair’s tenure.

The responsibility to protect History: Rwanda, Blair, Kosovo. The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.

A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities). If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

In the international community RtoP is a norm, not a law. RtoP provides a framework for using tools that already exist (like mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VI powers) to prevent mass atrocities. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.

When to intervene? Responsibility to protect (R2P) guidelines emphasise: Right cause Right intention Right authority Last Resort Proportionate means (what degree of force) Reasonable prospects (high probability of achieving a humanitarian outcome) (R2P 2001)

Timeline

Criticisms of R2P

David Cameron Cameron’s attitude to foreign affairs The Lord Mayor’s Banquet Speech David Cameron and the Lord Mayors banquet.docDavid Cameron and the Lord Mayors banquet.doc Annotate to show Cameron’s view of foreign affairs.

The Middle East upheaval First of all make sure you have a basic timeline east http:// east

Is it a turning point in history? Fukuyama wsnight/ stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ne wsnight/ stm

Is Cameron shifting? http:// Read and annotate article

Where does Obama sit? canada http:// canada Read and annotate

Is everyone for intervention? Chomsky wsnight/ stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ne wsnight/ stm

How has the Iraq war influenced foreign policy of major powers?

Is military intervention compatible with upholding human rights? Arguments forArguments against Come back to basded upon additional knowledge.

Exam questions next week.