Suchergebnisse

Several aspects of contemporary humanitarian intervention practices are examined, emphasizing the relationship between such interventions & state sovereignty. After providing an overview of the notion of sovereignty, the association of sovereignty & human rights is explored. Differences between pre- & post-1990 justifications for humanitarian intervention are identified. It is contended that sovereignty became associated with both authority & responsibility during the 1990s. The connection between humanitarian objectives & national interests is studied, maintaining that some humanitarian interventions have been guilty of double standards, eg, the creation of no-fly zones in parts of Iraq. The international community's response to US intervention in Iraq, Haiti, & Rwanda & UN intercession in Bosnia is considered. Issues regarding how certain states & international organizations can circumvent the UN Security Council & abuse humanitarian objectives & the tendency for developing nations to be potential targets for humanitarian interventions are addressed. It is asserted that new guidelines that detail the conditions required before humanitarian interventions can be launched are needed & that such decision-making authority be removed from the UN Security Council & presented to a larger international coalition. It is concluded that this relocation of power will benefit the global South in terms of order & justice. J. W. Parker

The intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999 aroused controversy at the time and still provokes questions about the legality of the action, its precedential effect, and procedures for developing new international law. The participants faced a legal and moral dilemma between international law prohibitions on the use of force and the goal of preventing or stopping widespread grave violations of international human rights. This commentary seeks to chart a course for the future in light of the current legal and moral environment. Many individuals on all sides of the Kosovo crisis maintained the highest standards of law and morality. Regrettably, others, particularly political leaders, fell short of their moral or legal obligations or both. Of the latter, the leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) headed by Slobodan Milosevic stands out. The FRY committed grave international crimes against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. However, both the ethnic Albanians and the Serbs in Kosovo engaged in aggressive and brutal actions against each other and both were at fault, legally and morally. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has also committed terrorist and other brutal acts against the Yugoslav Serbs and the FRY forces. As for the United Nations, though perhaps not morally at fault, it did not address the Kosovo problem in a timely and effective manner, as is its responsibility. Indisputably, the NATO intervention through its bombing campaign violated the U.N. Charter and international law. As a result, the intervention risked destabilizing the international rule of law that prohibits a state or group of states from intervening by the use of force in another state, absent authorization by the U.N. Security Council or a situation of self-defense. The NATO actions, regardless of how well-intentioned, constitute an unfortunate precedent for states to use force to suppress the commission of international crimes in other states--grounds that easily can be and ...

Considers the utility of (militarized) humanitarian interventions (or humanitarian warfare) in recent extreme cases where rights violations are so severe as "to shock the conscience of humankind." Discussed are conditions required to invoke humanitarian intervention, its implementation & preferred agents, & appropriate conditions for halting the intervention. Drawing on examples of Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, East Timor, Liberia, Sierra Leone, & Kosovo, it is suggested that violations of human decency must be evaluated case by case to determine the need to intervene, especially when terror is state-sponsored against a group or vulnerable minority. Without harming innocent civilian populations, interventions should mobilize capable & effective forces to prevent further atrocities until a locally legitimate form of governance can operate freely. Common objections to these principles are addressed. J. Sadler

The humanitarian intervention discourse: a debate on the edges of the law -- The third source of international law -- Equity as 'general principles' in the legal systems of 'civilized nations' -- Equity in international legal practice -- Framework for equitable humanitarian intervention.