Couple of changes to order of readings Hugo Slim, “Violence and Humanitarianism” (This week, only) Ken Roth, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention” (move from week 7 to week 8) Week 8 ICISS chs. 3, 5--Recommended not required

Saving Strangers: to Intervene or Not? 1.Humanitarian Assistance & Intervention 2.Intervention, Law and Sovereignty 3.Post-Cold War interventions Overview Focus on Northern Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992-3), Kosovo (1999)

Key Questions 1.What is the distinction between humanitarian assistance and intervention? 2.Moral Paradox of Humanitarianism (Slim) 3.What is the legal framework for intervention? 4.What are the potential risks or abuses of military intervention? Or, Is Humanitarian intervention a triumph of cosmopolitanism?

Humanitarian Aid or Access IHL: Geneva Conventions (see –Rules of conduct for combatants –Protection of civilians and non-combatants –Restriction on means of warfare “To limit the effects of armed conflict” (ICRC) –Impartial and unarmed –Aid and assistance –“Restrain, protect and repair”

“Humanitarian” Intervention Coercive action: –Stopping the killing or dying –Introducing a “measure of peace and civility, so as to enable the people of the country to decide their political destiny themselves” (Parekh) Political, Economic, Judicial, Military

Assistance Jus in bello Geneva Conventions To limit the effects of armed conflict Consent of sovereign state required (?) Military Intervention Jus ad bellum UN Charter To govern the use of force No consent required

Moral Paradox of Humanitarianism (Slim) 1.Ambiguous relationship with violence Not a pacifist ideology Concerned with jus in bello (means) “Nightingale’s risk” “Humane killing” (gas chambers) 2.Humanitarian Warriors Humanitarian ethic as jus ad bellum (ends) Violence to protect human rights

Intervention, Law and Sovereignty Legal default is no intervention –Article 2(1): states as equal sovereigns –Article 2(4): prohibition of use of force –Article 2(7): prohibition of intervention in matters of domestic jurisdiction Sovereignty as –No external authority over state –Protection of internal ways of life and unique identities

Intervention, Law and Sovereignty Legal Use of Force: Chapter VII –Article 39: if Security Council determines “threat to international peace and security” –Article 51: individual states’ right of self-defense Emerging customary “right” of intervention –Jus cogens norms: crimes against humanity –Genocide Convention (prevent) –Articles 1(3), 55 & 56: protection of hr

(Humanitarian?) Intervention Too little, too late “Cruel promise” – lack of commitment Do no harm: “Collateral damage” Question of double-standards Hypocrisy and implication in violence Self-interest Human rights imperialism

Country Of Note Liberia ECOWAS: cease-fire monitoring Northern Iraq 1991-“Safe havens” for Kurds and Shi’ites and “no-fly zones” Yugoslavia 1992Safe areas for aid; airstrikes to halt Serb offensives Somalia Historic Ch.VII; failed state Rwanda Operation Turquoise (UN/France) Haiti Refugee situation following coup Sierra Leone 1997-ECOWAS; UN. (limited impact) Kosovo 1999-“illegal but legitimate” (NATO auth.) East Timor 1999-Permission from Indonesia

Northern Iraq 1991 Brutal suppression of Kurdish revolt –Chemical weapons –2 million civilians flee their homes UN SC resolution 688: –that Iraq immediately cease repression and allow access to humanitarian aid –Emphasis on threat to international peace and security

Northern Iraq 1991 No-fly zones in North and South Safe havens to allow Kurds to come down from mountains 688 used to legitimize use of force –dubious legality –not in the letter but in “spirit” of 688? (Mills)

Northern Iraq 1991 Lives saved but… Criticized for failing to address root problems Limits of air patrols “CNN effect” Implication in violence Hypocrisy (?): violation of Iraqi sovereignty after Kuwait

Somalia Historic Chapter VII intervention –“all necessary means” to deliver aid –first intervention on purely humanitarian grounds Failed state: no violation of sovereignty “Black Hawk Down”: 18 US Rangers and Somalis killed

Somalia Lives saved but… Critics of use of force –Was it last resort? –Not meeting criteria of proportionality Lack of cultural sensitivity Cruel promise: fear of “body bags” and implications for Rwanda

Kosovo 1999 Conflict between Albanian separatists (Kosovo Liberation Army) and Serb govt Reports of massacres, mass expulsions UN condemns but does not authorize use of force NATO airstrikes

Kosovo 1999 “Illegal But Legitimate” Aversion of impending humanitarian crisis NATO justified orders in terms of existing resolutions Ethnic cleansing a long-term threat to stability UN res. to condemn NATO failed 12-3

Kosovo 1999 Lives saved but… Airstrikes provided cover for offensives on ground “Collateral damage” Lack of commitment of ground troops reduces “moral high ground” of NATO New cosmopolitanism or dangerous precedent?