International Law Against Interventions - Essay Example

?Introduction The end of the Second World War created major changes and major modifications in the global order of nations. Prior to the 1900s, imperialist nations with relatively advanced military structures invaded other weaker nations and imposed their will on them. To this end, the human rights and the territorial rights of the people in these weaker nations were left to the domineering foreign nation. This was the cause of wars in the world and tensions between nations. Thus, after the massive destruction of lives and properties in the Second World War, the United Nations was set up to protect human rights and national/territorial sovereignty of nations. This paper will examine the legal framework within which the human rights of individuals and territorial rights of nations around the world is critically examined. The paper will examine the research question, the reconciliation of national sovereignty and non-intervention with humanitarian intervention to preserve human rights. To this end, the research will examine the position of national sovereignty and the prevention of military intervention as posited by UN law against humanitarian interventions. This will involve a critique of international laws and the prevention of military intervention. The limits of military intervention in areas like humanitarian intervention and the right to protect as defined in international law and its justification for intervention. International Law Against Interventions The United Nations was formed in 1945 as a response to the large scale human rights violations and destruction that came with World War II1. The primary essence of the UN was to ensure that nations were created and structured in a way and manner that they would serve the real and true interests of the citizens and people it serves, not interest groups and individuals who had selfish interests. The United Nations came up with different views and different efforts to prevent foreign aggression and international wars that could potentially destroy nations and cause large-scale wars and destruction. This was done through the formation of the UN charter that created a context of a “family of nations” that were required to deal with issues and matters according to universal standards preserved by the United Nations which became the basis for international law and the foundation of international relations2. One of the approaches for achieving international peace was through a system of guaranteeing the rights of different nations around the world. This way, there was the guarantee that foreign nations could not just invade weaker nations as it was in the two World Wars. The two World Wars and other wars that created major regional and continental destabilization like the Napoleonic wars were because nations rose up against other nations. So the UN found it necessary to create laws that were meant to negate and prevent other nations from attaching others. Some of the core rules and core regulations of the UN were integrated into the UN Charter. The UN Charter was meant to create the framework for the regulation of nations. Thus, Article 1 of the UN Charter set the preamble of the United Nations, its composition and values. However, Article 2 moved to set out the core and fundamental principles that defined the UN. Article 2(4) of the UN stated explicitly that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”3 This article indicates that the UN renders international aggression by one nation against another through the use of force as illegal. This is because the UN needed a framework to define the interactions of nations. Hence, the article makes it illegal and wrong for any nation to rise against another through military force or violence. Another angle through which Article 2(4) can be critiqued is on the grounds of preserving the territorial sovereignty of nations. To this end, nations are given some kind of protection from the use of violence and aggression by other other nations. Even if a nation was weaker and less dominant in military terms, that nation could stand up to other nations as equals. And this is the core and fundamental essence of the United Nations4 Military intervention is the movement of troops or military forces of one independent country or a group of countries to another country5. This definition implies that the use of force or the organization or mobilization of troops by one country against another country falls under the ambit of the definition of military intervention and this is not permitted by international law6. Thus, in military terms, nations will have to view each other as equal and on the same level when it comes to military matters. Any military intervention is inherently illegal and unacceptable in international law. From another perspective, military intervention can be seen as the coercive application of military force by a foreign nation in an international conflict in a way and manner that affects the outcome of the conflict7. This therefore means that if a country or government supports one side or one faction in a given conflict in a given nation, that foreign country is acting in a way and manner that is against international law8. This is because Article 2(4) makes it imperative for nations and states to respect the independence and territorial sovereignty. Hence, the use of force and the use of other interventionist tactics to influence other nations' political affairs or conflicts are rendered illegal and unacceptable. Hence, international law does not support interventionist tactics. Some scholars argue summarily that all military interventions in foreign conflicts are not legal and are against international law. Some argue that these wars are illegal on first instance and no kind of excuse or justification can be put forward to correct these international interventions in military conflicts in foreign nations. In contemporary terms, it is argued that national wars in the Cold War era were almost always influenced by forces outside the border of a given nation9. This is because in most conflicts in the East-West Cold Wars, it was uncommon for nations to go without seeking covert or some kind of support from outside their borders in order to reflect their foreign alignment. Thus, the definition of “foreign intervention” in military conflicts was always about direct intervention in the pre-1990s. However, after the end of the Cold War, the two definitions (viz direct and indirect interventions) are applicable and acceptable. Kalyvas goes on to argue that most of the wars fought after the Cold War, like the War in Sierra Leone were wars fought purely to further the personal interests and expectations of the warlords. These warlords sought to instigate some kind of aggression within the nation and the community to meet their own personal ambitions and expectations10. These wars were selfish and sought to greedily get people to meet their needs and expectations at the expense of human lives and other victims of the wars. Thus, whereas the Cold War was fueled by wider considerations and regional and international ideological claims, modern wars fought after 1990 was made up of individual needs and individual expectations. This means that the modern wars fueled by selfish ambitions of leaders to seize political power and other things are illegal in themselves. This is because the wars are fought by ego-centered causes and views and expectations. Hence, they are human rights abuses that are akin to the deliberate and artificial creation of hardships for people on the basis of individual interests and needs. Thus, there might be some kind of justification for some form of foreign intervention in such situations and contexts because individuals with military powers and military authorities will literally be bullying the masses if they are allowed to terrorize and destroy lives. In such cases of individualistic and selfish ego-driven conflicts, the right to territorial sovereignty might not be sufficient or enough to prevent foreign interventions. A number of systematic arguments lay the foundation for the justification of interventions and attacks of foreign countries where certain facts exists. Troubled and Failed States As identified above, the case whereby a nation or community is being threatened by a bunch of war criminals, there might be a justification for the international community to limit the right to territorial or national sovereignty. This means that a group of individuals might have risen above the normal rules and arrogated power to cause massive abuses. In such instances, the international community might need to raise a military intervention force to deal with the aggression in the country. In another case, a nation might be classified as a failed state. Failed states are the states that are wholly or partially collapsed with no recognizable authority internally amongst the nationals of the nation and the international community11. In that case, the rule in Article 2(4) which prevents international military intervention might be limited and restricted. This is because the country might lack the right systems and infrastructure to set up the right kind of government that would eschew chaos and anarchy and ensure that the rights of individuals in the country are protected and properties are safeguarded. In such a situation, it might be imperative and appropriate for the international community to intervene militarily in order to deal with the crisis and create a system of governance that ensures peace and prosperity. Military intervention might be acceptable if it is the best means of ensuring that a failed state gets the right structures and systems to deal with its numerous problems and issues12. Thus, military intervention might be permitted in cases of fragile or failed states. Humanitarianism and Foreign Intervention. There are various grounds on which nations can cede their right to prevent foreign interventions and other interventions from the international community. This is because most countries are parties to international treaties which makes it imperative for governments and the relevant authorities to protect the rights and needs of significant parties and people in the country. There are some fundamental laws and regulations which calls for prompt action by the international community. Some of them include the following: 1. Women's rights: The UN bases its vision on the need to protect vulnerable populations like women from various forms of abuses13. These conventions were meant to identify women's interests and how women's rights could be protected and enhanced in different nations. Notable cases and situations where this is overtly and pervasively abused is the case of nations where governments make a conscious effort to keep women in a perpetual cycle of servitude and degradation. Famous example is the case of the Taliban which banned education to women and sought to kill women who were brave enough to get education. In such situations, the veil of national sovereignty will be removed from a nation. 2. Children's rights: Another area and aspect where the rights of vulnerable people need protection is in the area of children's rights14. This involve the guaranteeing of rights for children. And this include the rights to education, social, cultural and protections from violence, forced labor and other things. In cases where a government shows that it cannot guarantee these rights, that nation waives its right to be called a valid nation with territorial sovereignty. An example is the case of Sierra Leone where children were denied education and rather used as child soldiers in wars. In that situation, it became imperative for the international community to intervene to ensure that the right structures of the nation were built and maintained. 3. Civil rights: There are laws and conventions that protect the rights of minorities and special groups in nations that are discriminated against1516. Thus a government of a nation would need to take reasonable care and measures to deal with the needs and expectations of different groups and societies in its borders. Where this is overtly abused, the nation will lose the protection guaranteed in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Thus, for nations to be considered a part of the international community and global order and a valid representation, there is the need for the nation to have a recognizable government that is acting to promote peace and prosperity and also guarantee the rights of minorities and vulnerable persons. Where there is chaos an there is no evidence of the protection of these fundamental rights, there is a justification for foreign intervention under the Responsibility to Protect. Responsibility to Protect The responsibility to protect was institutionalized in the UN's body of laws in 2005. It involves the upholding of a norm whereby it was imperative, rather than option for nations to intervene in conflicts where the four cardinal offenses were being conducted against the vulnerable population17. The four cardinal offenses include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing18. This therefore places an obligation on the international community to intervene and take up a an active role in a situation where massive abuses were being meted out against people and individuals in the different nations and communities around the world. However, there are some some components that are worth mentioning. First of all, it is imperative if the nation or the state fails to protect its citizens. Secondly, it is applicable where other measures like sanctions have failed. Finally, it occurs where military intervention is the last resort and only possibility to prevent further bloodshed. Humanitarian intervention is done to preserve lives and properties and has been upheld for several decades19. Although this is a default position, the responsibility to protect which is fairly new, makes it imperative. Although the old definition of humanitarian intervention was permitted in a case where there is grave human rights abuses in pluralist terms like the case of India in Bangladesh or the intervention of Tanzania in Uganda in the period of Idi Amin20. Case Analysis of Afghanistan and Sweden Afghanistan and Sweden are joined the United Nations in 1946, a year after the UN was formed. This implies that they are both members of the “family of nations” and the international convocation system that the the UN presents to the world. Hence, they are both sovereign nations protected by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This means that none of them can be invaded militarily by any other nation since such an action will be considered prima facie as an international aggression that would be illegal under UN laws. However, Afghanistan came under foreign domination by the USSR, a member of the UN Security Council in 1979. This was in itself an illegal act. However, the International Community could not do much but to arm the Afghans to wage a resistance war against the Soviets. This led to a NATO led effort to arm the militant Islamists to defend the country. After a decade of war, the Soviet Union collapsed and they withdrew. Afghanistan was left with no government because the militant Islamists were fighters who were of different nationalities and could not form a valid government for the people of Afghanistan. Islamists however captured parts of the nation and formed a radical government that conducted blatant human rights abuses against the Afghan people. The regime, known to the outside world as the Taliban instituted a strict Islamic government that denied education to women and male children were exposed to violence. This was complemented by serious human rights abuses like regular hanging of enemies of the Taliban regime and other things. Eventually, in 2001, a terrorist attack hit the United States and the US identified the suspects as connected to the Taliban. This led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Sweden had to participate in the effort of rebuilding Afghanistan because the intervention was somewhat justified by the fact that the people of Afghanistan were not governed by a valid government or regime. This led to the creation of a new government. Under the 2005 Responsibility to Protect, the invasion of Afghanistan and the participation of a relatively stable nation like Sweden was justified on the grounds that Afghanistan was a failed state and there was threat of massive human rights abuses. Conclusion The default position of the UN is to protect the human rights of people by preserving the territorial sovereignty of nations. However, in cases where massive human rights abuses exists in a nation, the international community can intervene to ensure the rebuilding of the nation. This is now a responsibility under the UN's 2005 Responsibility to Protect convention. References Badescu, C. G. (2010). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: security and human rights. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Call, C. (2008) "The Fallacy of the 'Failed State'," Third World Quarterly 29(8): pp1491- pp1507. Finnemore, M. (2003) The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force Ithaca: Cornell University Press Haines, S.and Kassimeris, G. (2010), The Ashgate research companion to modern warfare, Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd Hannover, J. and White, J. (2011) US-NATO Intervention in Libya [Online] Available at: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/u.s.-nato-intervention-in-libya-risks-and-benefits Retrieved September 15, 2013. Kalyvas, S. N. (2001) "'New' and 'Old' Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?" World Politics 54: pp99-pp118. Macfarlane, S. N. (2002) "Intervention in Contemporary World Politics," Adelphi Papers 350: 14. Miller, B. (1998) "The Logic of U.S. Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War Era," Contemporary Security Policy 19(3) (December 1998): pp72- pp109. Oppenheim, L (1955) International Law: A Treatise London: Logmans Pearson, F. S. (1974) "Foreign Military Interventions and Domestic Disputes," International Studies Quarterly 18 (September 1974): p261 Posen, B. R. (1996) "Military Responses to Refugee Disasters," International Security 21(1): pp72-pp111 Robben, B. (2010) World History after 1945 Oxford: Oxford University Press Viault, B. (2010) World History San Francisco: McGraw Hill Watson, B. (2012) International History London: Hodder Publishing Weiss, T. G. (2004) "The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era," Security Dialogue 35(2) pp135- pp153. Weiss, T. G. (2011) "RtoP Alive and Well after Libya," Ethics and International Affairs 25(3) pp287-pp292. Read More