ATS1873

Humanitarian Intervention (5)

In order for humanitarian intervention to be legitimate and legal, it needs to have been authorised by the UNSC. This evokes multiple complications as the UNSC is often hamstrung by the alternative interests of its permanent member states. In repose to the civil war in Libya however, the UNSC was able to pass Resolution 1973 authorising the use of force to protect the Libyan civilians. This resolution however was not very successful and many believe it lacked justifiable reasoning behind its creation. In contrast, NATO's intervention in the Kosovo conflict was not authorised by the UNSC however ultimately saved the Albanian population in Kosovo from an attempted genocide.

Liberalism (5)

As stated by Thomas Pogge, liberalism centres around the fundamental needs and interests of individual human beings and thus the use of force can only be legitimised if it is in order to protect individual liberties. The use of force thus can never be legitimised for the purposes of protecting a state's national interest, as the needs of citizens are sacrosanct, and not the needs of a state. However, in order to protect these needs of human beings and to ensure their rights are upheld, a liberal may find that the use of force is necessary for self defensive purposes. In line with these reasons, the responsibility to protect doctrine which is fundamentally premised on liberal values, outlines the circumstances in which the use of force and intervention may be justified. As Kant states, a violation of rights in one place is felt in all places.

Liberalism (3)

However, these justifications are not unanimous for all liberals, with the legitimisation for the use of preventative and preemptive force through liberal values being contentions. Kant saw preemption as unjust, which stands in direct contrast to Francis Hutcheson who argued for preemptive military action in order to prevent the expansion and success of a dangerously powerful state which may threaten the dominance of the liberal national order. Furthermore, preventative action is often a preeminent factor of the need to protect human rights, and thus force may be legitimised by a liberalist in the greater cause for the protection of human rights. Therefore, the idea of defence as a means for legitimising the use of force may be regarded with caution by a liberal, however, if it is in in combination with other liberal values such as protecting human rights and the liberation of citizens, preventative uses of force potentially gain legitimacy.

Humanitarian Intervention (1)

Humanitarian intervention questions the most basic idea of world order; the sovereignty of states, and its limits. With the governments of some states failing to successfully fulfil their role; that is to look after their citizens, the international community often assumes an implied responsibility to intervene. However in the primarily Westphalian system in which we live, states have sovereignty, and this is considered by some, to be sacrosanct. The UN Charter in relations to humanitarian intervention ultimately contradicts itself, but primarily authorises intervention and the use of force provident the UNSC agree to it. This was the case in Libya, in line with the R2P doctrine, however this intervention was not very successful. In contrast, the UNSC did not authorise the use of force by NATO in Kosovo, however NATO went ahead regardless and ultimately brought about the end of the conflict.

Liberalism (1)

Liberalism sees that all citizens are judicially equal and possess certain basic rights to education, access to a free press and religious toleration. State authority is limited and can not be used to abuse its citizens' basic rights. Thus, in line with these values, the use of force may be justified in order to protect and promote human rights by means of defensive interaction in order to preserve the existence of liberal values. However these justifications for the use of force are not unanimous for all liberals. Similarly, the enforcement of nonintervention, and the undertaking of humanitarian intervention in order to aid others are actions that are supported by liberalist values, such values that are reflected in the R2P doctrine, a doctrine which outlines the specific circumstances in which humanitarian intervention and the use of force an be justified.

Humanitarian Intervention (3)

Many claim that sovereignty is not a right but a responsibility, and that states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from human rights abuses. This is in line with the R2P doctrine that has become a norm and principle within international relations, however it is not legally binding. It has three pillars. These are that a state has the responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes. If the state is unable to or fails to do so, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures, such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered a last resort. The international community justified military intervention in Libya in 2011, with humanitarian intervention forming the justification for passing UNSC Resolution 1973. This resolution called on all member states to 'take all necessary measures to... protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack' in Libya. The UN Charter obligates states to refrain from the use of force unless it can be justified as self defence in a cross border armed attack (Article 51) or mandated by a decision of the UNSC. Therefore, any use of force by another state or collection of states would breach article 2(7) of the Charter, however in this case intervention was authorised by the UNSC.

Humanitarian Intervention (4)

The NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was illegal but ultimately worthwhile. The use of force spared the majority Albanian population from a likely attempted genocide by the Serbian occupiers. NATO's intervention was believed to be illegal by Russia and China, who demanded that the NATO military campaign cease immediately. Although the UN had been involved throughout the crisis, the UNSC failed to agree on a military response. The UNSC did however later endorse agreements between NATO and Yugoslavia for an 'air verification' mission, however did not authorise the use of force. NATO however went ahead without the authorisation of the UNSC. NATO initiated military operations against Yugoslavia. With the NATO military campaign having lasted for eleven weeks, Milosevic, the President of Serbia at the time, capitulated and Yugoslavia withdrew from Kosovo. NATO's intervention in Kosovo has promoted the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as a legal principle. The Kosovo incident also gave expression to the moral consensus in the international community that severe breaches of human rights should not be tolerated.

Liberalism (4)

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was founded in line with liberal values and is now a norm and principle in international relations, however it is not legally binding. This UN initiative created in 2005 is based on the idea that sovereignty is a right not a responsibility. In line with liberal values it focuses on preventing and halting mass atrocity crimes and is based on 3 pillars. These are that a state has the responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes. If the state fails to or is unable to protect its population, then the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures, such as through economic sanctions. Military intervention is thus a last resort. The international community justified military intervention in Libya, with military intervention forming the justification for passing UNSC resolution 1973. This resolution called on all member states to 'take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas that are under the threat of attack" in Libya, thus in line with liberal values. However the consequences of the military intervention in Syria were not thoroughly thought through and thus the resolution was hardly successful. However the humanitarian and liberal cause for deciding to save lives, and as a last resort through military intervention still stands.

Treaty of Westphalia (1)

The ToW was a collection of treaties whose common link was to end the 30 Yrs' War. This war had ravaged Europe and resulted in economic, demographic, political, and religious distress. The Treaty's purpose sought peaceful and diplomatic resolution to war, as well as intending to instigate diplomatic forums and relations. It was signed at Munster, in Westphalia, Germany on the 24th October 1648. This essay argues that the Treaty is still fundamentally significant in the current international system, with its laws considered to be the initiation of the international state system, some of which are still in existence today. Similarly, the Treaty envisaged a system of territorially bound sovereign states, formalising the doctrine of state sovereignty, a doctrine that still stands today. However, with the exponential increase in globalisation, this doctrine of state sovereignty is increasingly challenged.

Treaty of Westphalia (5)

The ToW which ended the 30 Years' War in Europe, removed the temporal power from the Church and validated states as the central and sovereign actors within international elations. This ideal was founded on the concept that international relations should be driven by balance of power considerations, rather than the ideals of Christendom. This system of territorially bound sovereign states still exists today, with the Treaty having laid the foundations for the global political arena's international laws to be based around this concept of a states' fundamental sovereignty. With the increase in globalisation fundamentally challenging Westphalian principles, states are adapting to a system in which a states sovereignty is not necessarily regarded as paramount within international affairs.

Treaty of Westphalia (3)

The Treaty of Westphalia has had significant implications on the international state system, particularly in relation to the notion of state sovereignty. This is because it altered the way that political power structures existed. Before 1648 and the Treaty, there was a feudal system throughout most of Europe. Sovereignty did indeed exist, however it was not recognised by all states as it has been since the Treaty. The Treaty emphasised the separation of states. As explained in Hassan's article in 2006, with the treaty emphasising the separation of states, Christendom was divided into sovereign, secular states and the government were the absolute authority inside each individual state. This change brought a new image in every sovereign territorial limit; that is that all governments are the exclusive authority and that their decisions are exclusively carried out within the territorial limit. This is because the concept of Westphalian sovereignty is closely linked to state sovereignty. According to territorial sovereignty, within a state there is only one absolute temporal power; the government of the territorial state.

Humanitarian Intervention (2)

The UN Charter outlaws the use of force on the part of individual states, and it empowers the UNSC to make all decisions that involve the use of military force by states. States are required to not use or threaten force against other states as per Article 2(4). This Article prohibits states from legally using force, however self defence is response to an attack is defined by Article 51 as legally separate and thus authorises states the inherent right to self defence. Article 34, 39, 42 and others of the Charter give the powers to determine the legitimacy of intervention to the UNSC. These sections establish that the UNSC has the 'primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security' (Article 24) and that it can take whatever measures it considers necessary to achieve this, including military action against states or other threats (Article 42). Thus the UNSC can authorise the use of force and intervention as long as it is in response to a 'threat to international peace and security' (Article 39), a very vague provision essentially allowing the UNSC to do whatever it wants. Therefore humanitarian intervention can be legitimised by the UNSC, however it will inevitably invoke a plethora of ethical and moral questions, as well as the question of who should determine fault.

Treaty of Westphalia (2)

The context of the Treaty's emergence describes many aspects of the present international legal system, and is considered the beginning of the international system of laws. The Treaty came about at a time when political entities were seeking a balance of power to ensure both their survival and autonomy. The Treaty sought to develop mutual reciprocity of autonomy over domestic and external state policies, seeking to end the war, as well as establish a method for the cooperation between political units. It provided a model for an established framework for the development of an international community. It introduced a system of states, or international society, comprising sovereign state entities. These sovereign entities possess the monopoly of force within their mutually recognised territories. This international society sees relations between states conducted by formal diplomatic ties between heads of states and governments, and international laws consists of treaties made (and broken) by these sovereign entities. This concept of sovereignty, which includes territorial integrity, non intervention, and political self determination was established by the treaty and still exists today.

Liberalism (2)

The use of force may be justified in accordance to liberal values for the purposes of self defence, both preemptive and preventative. These justifications are founded primarily in order to preserve liberal states, as well as protect individual citizens. However, the use of force by means of self defence, as suggested by Melvyn Frost, must only be used as a last resort and after peaceful measures have failed. Similarly, as suggested by Adam Smith, there is a duty of a sovereign state to protect liberal societies from violence and invasion by other societies, and thus the use of force may be used in such a circumstance. Furthermore, in line with these arguments, a Lockean interpretation sees that states have a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens, both within the state and outside the state, thus legitimising and sometimes necessitating the use of force through self defence.

Treaty of Westphalia (4)

With the significance of the ToW ever prevalent today, the increase in globalisation does pose a significant challenge to the Westphalian system, however it does not destroy it. With the Westphalian system heavily emphasising territorial boundaries, globalisation portrays a threat to states as chief actors, and emphasises stateless boundaries in order to accelerate and intensify the exchanges of goods, services, labour and capital. Globalisation sees a growing trend in the emergence of supranational organisations, where states are weaker individually and stronger collectively in intergovernmental organisations such as the EU or NATO. The Westphalian system relies upon territoriality, and firm borders which help to define a state. This is undermined by globalisation. However, while globalisation poses a significant challenge to Westphalian principles, it does not destroy the state based system. With states evolving over time due to the changing circumstances of the international system, the Westphalian system is shown to be flexile and durable. Similarly, the changing nature of maps over time, to expand or create new territorial boundaries of a state shows that states change over time, and that globalisation does not destroy the state based system that the ToW is premised on.