The Legalities Behind Military Interventions

Discussion in 'World Affairs' started by Pathfinder, Feb 4, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    Location:
    United-States
    The UN Charter on Military interventions:

    The United Nations Charter established as a universal legal norm the doctrine of non-intervention. Article 2(1) states that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(7) notes that nothing contained in the Charter authorizes the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state.49 Articles 42 (collective security authorized by the United Nations Security Council) and 51 (the inherent right of self defence) articulate the two sole exceptions to article 2(4)’s prohibition on the use of force.50

    https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-876-massingham.pdf

    Humanitarian Interventions:

    Humanitarian intervention is a use of military force to address extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their own government’s actions or failures to act. These interventions are also called “armed interventions,” or “armed humanitarian interventions,” or “humanitarian wars. They are interventions to protect, defend, or rescue other people from gross abuse attributable to their own government. The armed intervention is conducted without the consent of the offending nation. Those intervening militarily are one or more states, or international organizations.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/#SH3a

    Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community began to seriously debate how to react effectively when citizens’ human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The question at the heart of the matter was whether States have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene in a country for humanitarian purposes.

    http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

    As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention—such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses—is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

    The main source of international law on this issue is the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of military force against or in another state without its consent except when authorized by the UNSC or in self-defense against armed attack.

    http://www.cfr.org/international-la...nst-international-law-there-exceptions/p31017
     
    AMDR, T-123456 and Atilla like this.
  2. Atilla

    Atilla Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Location:
    Turkey
    If you are not in the UN Security Council or not aligned with a block of countries in the security council you can't do anything? UN system is messed up. It stops wars from ending and prevents smaller countries from using military force without security council permission. It's a rigged game.
     
  3. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    2,460
    Location:
    United-States
    Even Security councils members can not actually conduct a war without the approval of the other members. Kofi Annan criticized it: "If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?"
     
    Atilla likes this.
Loading...