The UN Security Council - Essay Example

?Public International Law Part I In instances where citizens of a suffer gross human rights violations from their own government and the Security Council remains inactive, military intervention of another state is often the only hope for the suffering populations. This is in accordance with the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This doctrine allows for the state’s use of military force against another state when the primary goal of the military force is to put an end to human rights violations being carried out by the “state against which it is directed”1. The exact legal definition for what would constitute humanitarian intervention has a wide latitude of discretion in terms of interpretation. The variations in its application include distinctions on humanitarian interventions limited to instances where: there may not be any consent from the host state, in instances where the intervention is being used as a form of punishment, and where the intervention involves retaliation for actions where the UN Security Council is already acting on2. In general, humanitarian interventions include activities the application of military actions. It is an intervention which seeks to interfere with state authority through the deployment of military forces within the restricted land and airspaces of the violating state3. This intervention also usually involves situations which may not impact on state interests but on acts which have humanitarian overtones. The issue of humanitarian intervention has long been one of the main issues of international policy and related considerations, especially with various incidents of human rights violations perpetuated by states against their citizens and against other residents4. The principle of state sovereignty and non-interference in independent state affairs are principles and arguments often used by violating states in order to refuse humanitarian interventions. However, it cannot be denied that humanitarian violations are compelling reasons for states to interfere in behalf of victims of human rights violations5. Throughout the years, states have intervened with military force without the authorization of the Security Council, mostly because of human rights violations. These incidents included interventions to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq; the NATO intervention in Kosovo; and the eventual entry of peacekeeping forces into Rwanda6. Without the UN authorization, any military attack is considered illegal, however, there may be moral and political support given to it under certain exceptional cases7. The intervening states would not likely be accused as lawbreakers, however there is a risk that the international legal courts would deem their actions to be legally or politically unjustified. There is a strong justification for military action in the face of human rights violations against people of another state because the foundations of human rights are not based on state borders8. The fact that the human right violation is being carried out by the state against its citizens and the international body sets up a logical and justifiable case of human rights intervention. This doctrine was built naturally from the history of European imperialists using religious justifications in order to suppress the rights of their colonies9. These actions do not anymore apply to current times, however, the roots for humanitarian intervention can be understood clearly under these considerations. Humanitarian intervention is justified for a variety of reasons. One of its main purposes relate to the prevention of genocide and the mass murder of citizens by government actors. Research reveals that since the 1900s, governments have been able to carry out killings totalling up to 169,198,000 of their own citizens10. This number is actually a greater total than the lives lost in this century’s wars11. Humanitarian interventions have been carried out in some of these mass murders in order to stop the significant number of human rights abuses. In the case of Idi Amin of Uganda, during his reign, he carried out numerous human rights violations against his own constituents and the Amnesty International even described his regime as atrocious due to these actions12. In 1979, Tanzania decided to intervene based on humanitarian grounds; and although it has been widely discussed that Tanzania also had its other motives for intervening, the actions of Idi Amin already serve as proper grounds for humanitarian intervention13. In East Bengali or Bangladesh, India also cited humanitarian reasons for its interventions after the Pakistan army attacked the civilians of East Bengali, carrying out various killings and destruction which led to the loss of about a million Bangladeshi lives14. India’s interventions successfully stemmed the attacks and it cited human rights reasons as well as border violations to support their intervening actions in Bangladesh. Before the UN, India justified its actions by declaring that they wanted nothing more than to rescue East Bengali from the tortuous acts of Pakistan15. Humanitarian interventions are also justified as part of the drive towards the maintenance of regional and global security. In instances when a state and its citizens are threatened by incidents including that of genocide, global and regional peace and security is also threatened. As a result, refugees often leave their home countries for other states in an attempt to save and secure their lives. India’s intervention in Bangladesh can also be justified by the numerous refugees who sought protection from India as a result of the massive killings being carried out by the Pakistan army16. Estimates actually dictate that about ten million Bangladeshis arrived in India as refugees leading to significant hardships to the country. In another case, the Organization of East Caribbean States rendered its help to the US and intervened in Grenada in 1983. In 1983, Grenada experienced much chaos after their Revolutionary Army launched a coup against the government, killing their Prime Minister and other main government officials during the attack17. The US primarily carried out its military actions in order to rescue some of its citizens caught in the crossfire in Grenada. For the OECS, they found the civil disturbance a major security threat to their member nations and sought to consider force in order to secure peace in the region18. This reasoning prompted them to join forces with the US in order to quell the civil strife in Grenada. These incidents manifest the reasonableness and the legal support which can be attributed to humanitarian interventions. Moreover, it would be difficult to imagine the current state of our peace and security if these humanitarian interventions have not been carried out throughout the years. Part II: Differentiated Responsibility Article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declares that all parties involved must try to secure the climate system for the sake of future and present generations on the basis of equality and in relation “with their common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities”19. Developed countries have the main task of leading the actions towards battling climate change and its negative effects. The concept of common but differentiated responsibility has already provided a legal and philosophical support for the legal duties, as well as the elements included in the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol20. The principle of differentiated responsibility has therefore become crucial in the establishment of international environmental law. The common concerns and the concepts of shared responsibility in addressing climate change support the goals of the UNFCCC and have long been part of international environmental law. Differentiated responsibility is founded on the historical responsibility of states and the various capacities of states to support climate change21. Fairness for all individuals and parties in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol is considered through the concept of historical responsibility22. Most of the responsibility is founded on the individuals who have contributed the most to the carbon build-up in the atmosphere23. The varying applications and needs of different countries also support the concept of equity. Industrialized countries have the essential elements to support and address climate change by mitigating and adapting policies, and these capacities are not often present in developing nations. All in all, based on its stated elements, the principle of differentiated responsibility seems to be highly equitable. It has gained strong acceptance internationally and will likely play a crucial role in the negotiations on climate change24. As some scholars would object to its various elements, their objection to the principle is based on varying interpretations of what is actually equitable for developed and developing countries. Some would argue that it is a significant challenge to determine the differentiated needs of developing states in the age of scientific uncertainty on the specific elements of adverse climate change25. Although it is apparent to note that there may be some uncertainties on the impact of climate change, overall agreements remain that developing states have to bear more damages from climate change. In effect, the principle rightly seeks to cross the economic divide between rich and poor countries in the management of environmental issues. Those who oppose the principle and its applications question the multi-lateral environmental agreements which consider developed countries responsible for their emissions, arguing that it is not fair to hold modern-day citizens responsible for pollution caused by other previous generations26. These oppositionists do not however consider the benefits which the current generations have gained and seem to continue to gain from their current conditions in their developed countries. These benefits include high standards of living, infrastructures, and economic competence27. These benefits have all been gained from the development activities and from industrialization activities which have caused much pollution throughout the years. As citizens from developed nations now enjoy the benefits of CFC and GHG emissions, it is but logical and fair to call for these nations to carry a greater burden in addressing the climate change issue. This principle has major implications for the establishment of international environmental laws. First of all, this principle calls for states to take part in the international responses which are meant to cover environmental issues28. Secondly, it also creates environmental standards which impose varying obligations for states. Common responsibility refers to the common responsibilities which states have in the protection of specific environmental resources29. Common responsibility would likely apply in instances where the resource is shared and is not controlled by any state, or is being controlled by the state but is under common legal interest30. The idea of common responsibility came from a wide range of international laws covering resources specified as common concerns. The differentiated responsibility of states in protecting the environment is very much accepted by treaties and state practices. It transforms in various environmental standards based on various factors, including special needs circumstances. Differential responsibility seeks to support equality among developed and developing countries31. Its aim is to secure developing countries, to ensure that they can comply with the specific rules, and make longer commitments over time32. Differential responsibility implies that international environmental laws have to make different legal commitments to the environment. The tools available in differentiated responsibility include grace periods or the delayed implementation of duties. Recently, the WTO laws have recognized the need to consider various economic, social, and environmental situations in developing nations before environmental duties are imposed33. Applications of common responsibility have been seen as early as in 1949 as tuna and fish were considered common concerns among parties based on their continued use by involved parties34. Other applications include space travel and the moon which are considered to be common concerns and interests of mankind. Animals like waterfowl were considered common concerns; and part of the natural and cultural heritage of man35. Various state practices support the idea of common concerns based on the Climate Change Convention which supports the notion that changes in the Earth’s climate and its negative implications are common issues for mankind. As each of these applications differ from each other, they must also be understood based on circumstances where they have been applied36. Even as state practices include the precise legal application of the various formulations, some legal responsibilities are founded on all states in relation to various environmental tools under treaty or customary law. As for differentiated responsibility, various treaties have already considered its application. The 1972 London Convention calls for remedies to be considered by parties based on scientific, technical, and economic responsibilities37. The special needs of developing nations are specified in Article 11(3) of the 1976 Barcelona Convention and in the preamble to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea where much consideration must be given to the circumstances and specific elements of their specific needs or of their specific38. Other treaties have considered the need to assess States and their capabilities, their capacity and the means within their disposal. The principle of differentiated responsibility has been considered for treaties and other legal policies for developed states. Examples of these instruments include the 1988 EC Large Combustion Directive which establishes various elements of emission reduction for the various member states, the 1991 VOC Protocol which gives parties the chance to specify the various ways they can gain reduction, and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty which declares that “without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure ...involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a member state, the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of temporary derogations and/or financial support from the Cohesion Fund”39. Delineating within developing countries is indicated in the Climate Change Convention which acknowledges the special needs of developing countries which are also vulnerable to climate change. In a similar regard, the Desertification Convention calls for parties to prioritize the affected African countries, especially due to the situation dominant in the area, while also not ignoring the situation in other developing countries in other regions. References A. Arend and R. Beck, ‘International Law and the Use of Force.’ (London: Routledge, 1993). M. Bortscheller, ‘Equitable But Ineffective: How The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Hobbles The Global Fight Against Climate Change, (2010). 10 Climate Law Reporter 2, 49 B. Burmester, ‘On Humanitarian Intervention: The New World Order and Wars to Preserve Human Rights,’ (1994) 264 Utah L. Rev. D. Bushey and S. Jinnah, ‘Evolving Responsibility? The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility in the UNFCCC,’ (2010) 6 Berkeley J. Int’l L. Publicist, 2. Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, ‘The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities: Origins and Scope,’ (2002). (accessed 14 May 2012). A. Dowell, ‘The International community and intervention in cases of genocide,’ (2009) 1 POLIS Student Journal 1, 10. T. Franck, ‘Of Gnats and Camels: Is there a Double Standard at the United Nations?’ (1984) 78 Am. J. Int’l L. 811, 825. A. Frye. 'Humanitarian Intervention: Crafting a Workable Doctrine.' (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2000), 13. L. Geissler, ‘The Law of Humanitarian Intervention and the Kosovo Crisis,’ (2000) 23 Hamline L. Rev. 323, 325 H. Kochler, ‘Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics,’ International Progress Organization: Studies in International Relations XXVI. (Vienna: International Progress Association, 2001), p. 2. M. Marjanovic, ‘Is Humanitarian War the Exception?’ Ludwig von Mises Institute. (2011) (accessed 14 May 2012). Maastricht Treaty, 1992. K. McManus, ‘The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and the UNFCCC,’ Climatico (2009) (accessed 14 May 2012). V. Nanda, ‘Tragedies in Northern Iraq, Liberia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti-Revisiting the Validity of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law-Part I.’ (1992) 20 Denv. J. Int’l L. 305, 322. C. Stone, ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in International Law,’ (2004) 98 AM. J. INT’L L. 276 S. Tharoor and S. Daws. ‘Humanitarian Intervention: Getting Past the Reefs.’ World Policy Journal. (2001) (accessed 14 May 2012). UNFCCC United Nations Climate Change Convention, Article 3. J. Welsh, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations.’ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2 The Read More