Should states intervene in internal affairs of other countries - Essay Example

SHOULD S INTERVENE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER S By Location Introduction Forceful Humanitarian Intervention which involves the use of military force in a bid to prevent the contravention of the fundamental human rights of citizens in another state has become one of the leading debates in the application of ethical principles in the international affairs. The protection of human rights of civilians are a motivation driven by ethical objectives. However, intervening into the affairs of another state contravenes the sovereignty law that governs the right to sovereignty of each state.

This is in conformation to the international law provided in the United Nations charter and customary international law. Therefore, the protection of human rights and the sovereignty of states have completely different basis. According to law, therefore, humanitarian intervention is only legal when and if authorized by the UN Security Council. Many cases of humanitarian interventions have involved an armed intervention without the authorization by the UN Security Council or consent from the state facing the conflict.

Despite the clarity of the issue in accordance to the UN charter, there is an existing controversy surrounding the legality of humanitarian interventions. This paper seeks to address the question of whether states have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other states with the purpose of stopping human rights violation. The paper will determine whether such interventions are legal or whether they violate the international law. The view that will be highlighted in this paper is that any form of humanitarian intervention that is not requested by the state facing conflicts or authorized by the UN Security Council is illegal.

As will be illustrated in this paper, the legality of any humanitarian intervention only rests on two exceptions which are highlighted in the UN charter. In a situation whereby a circumstance exhibits the two exceptions, then the UN Security Council offers the authorization to intervene surpassing the sovereignty law. The two exceptions given in the charter include any event that poses a threat to international peace and security should warrant a humanitarian intervention. However, the UN Security Council must ascertain that the threat to the international peace and security does exist and authorize the intervention1.

The other exception under which the UN Security Council offers authorization is if a state is acting in self-defence. This is also provided for in the UN charter. Therefore, as this paper will illustrate, any intervention not government by these two exceptions is considered illegal. This essay will rely on the analysis of several case studies in history, which present different situations where a humanitarian intervention occurred. In each case presented, the legal basis of action will be evaluated and the legality of the intervention will be determined in accordance with the international law in the UN charter.

The first section of the paper will define the Humanitarian Intervention. In the second section, an analysis of the legality of the humanitarian intervention, according to the international law will be provided. In this section, multiple case studies considered relevant in the discussion will be provided and analysed thoroughly in a bid to illustrate the legality of humanitarian intervention. The third section will consider whether humanitarian intervention has any moral justification. The fourth section will comprise of the conclusion and the recommendations.

Conclusion In conclusion to this essay, it is apparent that HI is illegal, even when a moral justification is offered. The concept of HI is not yet established as a legal rule in the framework of international law; it applies in neither conventional international law, nor customary international law, as previously analysed in this essay2. In addition, the only way for such an intervention to be considered legal is if the Security Council authorises it, in accordance with the concept of self-defence; otherwise, it is considered a violation of international law and the UN Charter, which provides against the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

The International law is clear regarding the status of the HI. Therefore, attempting to legitimise it could lead to a loss of confidence in international law and promote the use of war as a means to resolve disputes. This means that even if the protection of human rights is considered an essential objective among the objectives of the United Nations, it does not surpass the protection of international peace and security. From the case analysis provided in the above literature review, it is evident that the international community should focus its efforts to achieve its main goal, which is to maintain international security and peace, by supporting peaceful means to settle international disputes.

The international community should also avoid justifying war because that involves the violation of human rights. Thus, the answer to the question on whether states should intervene in other countries in order to prevent/stop humanitarian crises is that they should not interfere unless they have obtained authorisation from the UN Security Council. In any other case, such action is a violation of international law in accordance with the UN Charter and customary international law.