Such justifications include the defense of human rights, minorities, and their own nationals. States have used noble motives for centuries to justify armed intervention into the domestic affairs of other States. This opened the way to armed operations within the framework of the UN, or with its authorization however, it did not clarify the role that humanitarian considerations play in decisions to use force, nor did it succeed in clarifying UN soldiers’ responsibility in terms of protecting populations in danger. This concept was used to try to encourage and justify the use of force foreseen in the UN framework in order to protect populations threatened within their own country. The “right of humanitarian intervention”-or the “right to intervene for humanitarian purposes”-is a notion that achieved widespread popularity thanks to its ambiguity. Thus, it is important not to confuse “humanitarian intervention” defended by States or the UN with humanitarian actions undertaken by impartial humanitarian organizations in situations of conflict. Several times, the Council has invoked humanitarian considerations when undertaking military or peacekeeping operations, yet peacekeeping operations obey broad imperatives linked to maintaining or reestablishing international peace and security, according to which humanitarian considerations remain secondary. The Council is also authorized to use force and may decide that an international armed intervention is necessary to make the State in question stop its activities.
Definition principle of intervention in history series#
In such a case, the Council can undertake a series of measures, including diplomatic or economic sanctions. This right is thus entrusted to the UN Security Council when a State’s behavior can be construed as a threat to international peace and security. International law recognizes only one “right of intervention” into a State’s internal affairs it is set forth and limited in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Today, the UN Security Council holds the monopoly on the use of armed force in the international arena. United States of America, see Jurisprudence) the circumstances in which humanitarian aid can constitute an interference and as such an unlawful intervention into the internal affairs of a State. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified in 1986 ( Nicaragua v. In the past, States have used humanitarian arguments to justify direct and armed interventions that violated other States’ sovereignty.
In fact, humanitarian law clearly states that aid activities may in no circumstances be regarded as interference in an armed conflict or as unfriendly acts (API Arts. 2.7), under the principle of non-intervention, or non-interference, which posits that States should not “intervene in matters to preserve the independence of weaker states against the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones.” This concept is presented as the basis for international relations and therefore applies to interstate relations, not to relief activities carried out by impartial humanitarian organizations. Such intervention is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (Art. In international law, the concept of “intervention” is tied to the notion “interference” and is when a State intervenes in the internal affairs of another State, in violation of the latter’s sovereignty.
0 kommentar(er)
