In this blog post, we explore the dilemma that humanitarian intervention poses between state sovereignty and human rights protection, and discuss how the international community can reconcile them.
The tragedies in Kosovo and East Timor have reminded us of the need for the international community to intervene at the right time, when death and suffering are causing so many people to suffer, and when the state responsible is unable or unwilling to stop these tragedies. It is important to emphasize that this intervention should not simply be a military solution, but should be multi-faceted, including humanitarian assistance, political mediation, and economic reconstruction. In the case of Kosovo, member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened without a resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations, leading to controversies over the legitimacy of international law and violations of sovereignty, which lasted for a long time within the international community. In the case of East Timor, the Security Council voted to intervene, but only after receiving a request from Indonesia, the country involved in the conflict. We want this intervention to stabilize the situation in East Timor quickly, but hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people have already died, and the international community will have to face the accusation that it did little and that its intervention came too late, as it did in Rwanda.
Today, the world is entering an era of new actors, new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and development. First and foremost, globalization and increased international cooperation are changing traditional notions of sovereignty. As the world’s nations become increasingly interconnected economically, culturally, and politically, one country’s problems are often another’s problems. These changes have led the international community to recognize the need for a more collaborative and comprehensive approach. The new century also requires a fresh and more comprehensive understanding of the concept of national interest. The serious challenges we face today also send a new message: the interests of humanity as a whole are the interests of nations. This goes beyond mere economic interests to include environmental issues, human rights concerns, terrorism, the spread of infectious diseases, and other issues of global dimensions. The traditional concept of human rights has become more entrenched. The concept of human rights as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and subsequent international agreements is widely accepted. From the tragedies that have come before, we know now more than ever that we must never tolerate forces that violate human rights. The United Nations must change with the times, and yet we are not sure how it should respond to these changes.
The genocide in Rwanda demonstrated how dire the consequences of UN inaction can be. On the other hand, the international community’s conflict over Kosovo has raised equally important questions about the consequences of military action taken without consensus or clear legal authority through the UN. This is the dilemma of humanitarian intervention. Is it appropriate to use military force without a UN mandate, or should we stand by and allow systematic human rights abuses to continue on a massive scale? It seems truly tragic that the international community cannot satisfy itself on both of these important issues, as the Kosovo situation demonstrated.
To prevent tragedies like this from happening again in the future, we need a new consensus on humanitarian intervention. First and foremost, we need to agree on the principle that gross and systematic human rights abuses must be stopped wherever they occur. But, as we saw in Kosovo, we also need to agree on how to determine what action is necessary and when and who should carry it out. To that end, there are several things to consider. Humanitarian intervention should not be understood solely as the use of force. The criteria for judging humanitarian intervention must also overcome regional or ethnic interests. This requires moving beyond the traditional notion of sovereignty on the grounds that the interests of the international community as a whole are the interests of individual states. The United Nations must also have real powers commensurate with its status to uphold the principles of the Charter and protect human rights. These powers must go beyond mere military means, and must also be used to maintain peace and support post-conflict reconstruction. Through these efforts, the international community must truly pursue global peace and stability.
