1
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT: LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Historical context of humanitarian intervention
I. Origins and early examples
Humanitarian intervention being a part of interactions between states, morality, and law has
always been a subject of controversy. It can be traced back from the 19th century where
European powers used military force in the Ottoman Empire to protect Christians, (Bass, 2008).
These early examples laid the foundation of state involvement in exercising the concept of
human rights although in most cases were influenced by colonial intentions and power
diplomacy. The Congress of Vienna held in 1815 can be considered in the developments of
humanitarian intervention as it created the basis for the collective intervention against slave trade
(Simms & Trim, 2011). Thus, the humanitarian early multilateral cooperation paved the way for
the subsequent international campaigns for human rights violations. However, the concept stayed
rather ambiguous and many of the opponents insisted that it could be a mere veil for imperialistic
aims or meddlesomeness in sovereign issues. The struggle of the sovereignty of the state as well
as the rights of the people has always been an issue of debate in humanitarian intervention. As
Weiss (2016) has pointed out, the 19th-century interventions were grossly political and
conventional at best, which means that they were not inspired by the principles of humanitarian
intervention. Nevertheless, the early humanitarian interventions did help in the process of
weakening the Jus Cogens principle of absolute state sovereignty and creating a basis for the
later more effective international human rights standards of the 20th century. The further
development of humanitarian law especially the 1949 Geneva Convention also enhanced the
legal justification for protecting civilians during warfare and the existence of humanitarian crises
(Barnett, 2011). The examples from the early epochs and developing standards are the precursors
of the contemporary discussions concerning humanitarian intervention and the possible
application of this concept for the protection of human rights and the possible misuse of the
humanitarian intervention for political purposes.
II. Evolution of international norms
Despite being a rather young approach to regulating international relations; the concept of
humanitarian intervention has therefore been a subject of intense debates and also evolution that
demonstrates the interaction between changing global politics and shifting principles of
international law. After the Second World War, the idea of United Nations became the first
major change towards International Human rights and Intervention. Even though the UN Charter
enshrined the principle of Non-Intervention in Article 2(7), it also provided for Collective
Security in order to prevent threats to peace and security in the international community
(Chesterman, 2001). This struggle between state‟s sovereignty and thus human rights has hence
shaped the laws on humanitarian interventions. The cold war times had witnessed a very minimal
direct humanitarian intervention mainly because of the bipolar world and the fear of super power
2
confrontation. Nevertheless, after the Cold War, humanitarian interventions were on the rise
combined with the shift in rationales and principles. Sovereignty as responsibility as postulated
by Francis Deng and others which started in the 1990s recast the sovereignty absolutism of the
past (Wheeler, 2000). This concept claimed that states bear a duty for the safety of their people
and if they cannot accomplish this, the international community may have a right or even a duty
to intrude. Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkan wars of 1990s are the crises that paved way for
further normative progress. Especially, genocide in Rwanda was uncovered as the failure of the
international community, which resulted in debates and discussions, as well as the strengthening
of measures towards intervention (Bellamy, 2009). While the intervention in Kosovo in 1999,
especially because it was conducted without the approval of the UN Security Council, increase
the number of debates on the subject of humanitarian intervention and establish further extension
of the existing norms that were legally debated among the international society. These laid the
ground work for the formulation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which was adopted at the
2005 world summit as an attempt to provide a new paradigm for dealing with mass atrocities.
The R2P doctrine was a major advancement in the international law; from the right to intervene
to the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity,
as well as ethnic cleansing.
III. UN Charter and sovereignty
The United Nations Charter was signed in 1945 and lays down the key principles of;
contemporary international relations affecting humanitarian intervention and sovereignty of
states. There is a general ban placed on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state as stipulated in the Charter‟s Article 2(4); and the ban on
intervention in matters that are inherently within the domestic jurisdiction of states as provided in
Charter Article 2(7) (United Nations, 1945). Such clauses have for many years been regarded as
robust shields of state sovereignty, meaning that the rationale for humanitarian intervention is
difficult to justify. At the same time, the Charter also includes provisions that may be seen as
sources of wiggle room to these rules especially in situations of threat of international peace and
security. The Charter in particular, Chapter VII grants the Security Council the mandate to
endorse collective measures including the use of force in such cases (Luck, 2006). This has given
a legal ground for; some of the humanitarian interferences, though the application and
interrelation of these provisions have hence been controversial. Another conflict between
sovereignty and the protection of human rights arises from the Charter where human rights are
mentioned in the preamble and in several articles. Following Annan‟s (1999) assertion that the
Charter was written for the good of peoples, not to shield those who harm them, sovereignty
cannot be considered as an absolute bar to intervention in cases of extreme human rights abuses.
This process of changing dynamics of the Charter in the light of changing international norms
has resulted into what some scholars refer to as sovereignty-intervention dialectic (Ayoob, 2002).
The interplay between the ideas of state sovereignty and human rights protection has been
gradually wearing down the idea of sovereignty as it was viewed in the timeframe right after the
Second World War. The ICISS report of 2001 which brought in the notion of Responsibility to
3
Protect tried to square the circle by redefining sovereignty as responsibility rather than a right.
This reinterpretation aimed at redefining the Charter provisions with the new standard of
protected human rights stating that in case a state is unable to protect its people, then some of the
sovereign powers belong to the international community.
IV. Post-Cold War developments
The break-up of the cold war brought a new epoch for humanitarian interventions by; fetching
more international cooperation and new form of justification. Bipolarity brought the high risk of
powerful states conflict and cleared the significantly increasing opportunities for coalition
actions responding to humanitarian crises. It was seen in the changing role understanding of the
United Nations Security Council by enlarging its mandate of when an intervention is a threat to
international peace and security to include situations that are previously seen as domestic affairs
(Weiss, 2012). The first that might be considered as a rather important turning point was the
1991 intervention in northern Iraq to protect Kurds, although this operation was based on
humanitarian motives the consent of Iraq was not requested and given. Such an operation paved
the way for other forms of interventions to; take place in other countries that led to the
weakening of the principle of absolute sovereignty of states. A succession of humanitarian crises
followed in the nineties and that set the more benchmarks in the paradigm which governs the
interventions. Inability to stop genocide in Rwanda in 1994 as well as delayed intervention in
Bosnia which resulted into ethnic cleansing brought in what can be termed as moral and political
ramifications for uprising to stronger interventionism mechanism (Power, 2002). These
experiences were useful in the formation of the sovereignty as responsibility where it postulated
that sovereignty came with certain stringent responsibilities of shielding the people from
violence. In its operation against the federal territory of Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO acted
without specific authorization by the United Nations Security Council, yet the intervention in
Kosovo remains an important turning point to qualify the new humanitarian intervention norms.
Post read created a rather impassionate discussion on the legal and moral parameters of
intervention when not sanctioned by the UN and later lead to the creation of the ICISS (Bellamy,
2009). ICISS published its report in 2001 and proposed the concept of „Responsibility to Protect‟
commonly known as R2P which attempted at shifting the debate from „right to intervene‟ to
„responsibility to protect‟ [Evans, 2008]. This change in language and thinking was used to first
make the concept of intervention acceptable to states that would be highly sensitive to any form
of infringement of their sovereignty. R2P was endorsed at the 2005 World Summit and was
significant development of humanitarian intervention norms in the post-Cold War period, though
how it is to be applied has remained problematic.
2. Legal framework for intervention
I. UN Security Council resolutions
UN Security Council resolutions make up the key component of legal regulation of humanitarian
intervention, within the framework of the Charter the use of force is legitimate only in cases of
self-defense or if it is authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The approval of
4
intervention lies in the Council‟s competence resulting from Chapter VII of the UN Charter, in
accordance with which the Council decides on threats to international peace and security and
takes adequate measures, including military ones (United Nations, 1945). Since the end of the
Cold War this framework has been frequently used for humanitarian crises meaning that it has
expanded the definition of threats to the international peace and security. The UN‟s first specific
focus on human rights violations inside a sovereign state was Resolution 688 in 1991 on the
Kurdish population of Iraq, which linked human rights infringements to a breach of international
peace and security. This resolution; created the ground for the other interventions that would be
done based on humanitarian interests. The development of Security Council practice in this area
has not been without controversy as shown by the following. The opponents stress that the
Council activity is highly politicized, and its key members, which possess the veto right, may
manipulate the choice of situations for humanitarian intervention, as well as the application of
this concept (Hehir, 2013). The extent of the interventions that have been undertaken during the
humanitarian crises, especially by the Security Council, has not been the same. While in some
occasions as in Somalia (Resolution 794) and Haiti (Resolution 940), the council outlined use of
force for humanitarian intervention. In others, for instance Rwanda, the response from the
council was indeed wanting which shows that this is a major weakness for relying on this body
alone to address humanitarian problems (Barnett, 2002). The most significant case is Libya in
2011 (Resolution 1973) that might be considered the peak of the readiness of the Security
Council to intervene to protect populations under the RC/P hide. Nevertheless, the controversy
that arose later in relation to the implementation of the intervention is that it limited the use of
similar resolutions in the future, as evidenced by the Council‟s inability to act on Syria. This is
evident in the consistent problem of attaining international cooperation on humanitarian
intervention through the framework of the Security Council.
II. Customary international law
The prohibition on genocide for example can be evidenced to be an absolute norm or „jus
cogens‟ of international law that may justify intervention to prevent or stop the commission of
acts of genocide (Bassiouni, 1996). But, regarding the scope to which customary law recognizes
the right of humanitarian intervention even without approval from UN Security Council, the
issue has remained a subject of debate. There are authors who state that state practice in this
regard after the cold war has started to form a customary right of humanitarian intervention. It
cites the examples like the Kosovo in 1999 and Sierra Leone in 2000 as evidences of increasing
recognition for the unilateral or coalitional action in string humanitarian emergencies
(Greenwood, 2002). However, the authors of criticism argue that such circumstances occur
infrequently and irregularly and likely represent novel examples of what is now defined as a new
rule of customary international law associate with numerous persistent objections of many states
to such a doctrine (Chesterman, 2001). Although, R2P do not constitute a rule of the customary
international law it has played a significant impact on the evolution of the norms of humanitarian
intervention as a matter of custom. The adoption of R2P by decision makers in the 2005 World
Summit implies that the international standards of humanitarian intervention and the states‟
5
responsibility to protect their citizens are increasingly accepted (Bellamy, 2010). However, the
practice of R2P is still a matter of a heated debate on its legitimacy as well as the circumstances
that may call for intervention. Customary international law coupled with the treaty law especially
the UN Charter introduces some form of complexity in the legal justification of humanitarian
intervention. Some believed that Charter provision can be changed to alter the customary
obligations Some others kept insisting that the Charter has imposing ban against the use of force
(Article 2(4), and against interference in domestic affairs (Article 2(7)). This tension is the result
of; the attempts to consistently navigate between the concerns of human rights and the principles
of the international law.
III. Regional organizations' roles
International organizations situated at the regional level have periodically got actively involved
in the legal approaches of humanitarian interventions, sometimes augmenting and enhancing the
efforts of the UN more often than not. In chapter VIII of the UN Charter, the organization
acknowledges regional arrangements as critical in preservation of international peace and
security which offers legal foundation to use these arrangements in humanitarian interventions
(United Nations, 1945, p. 2). This function has changed with time whereby regional
organizations may at times take charge of humanitarian disasters within their zone of influence.
The African Union (AU), for instance, has figured out a strong legal base through the
Constitutive Act that empowers the organization to intervene in a member state if that state has
committed a war crime, genocide and or crime against humanity (African Union, 2000). This is
quite a shift from the Organization of African Unity which prided itself in non-interference; the
regime has been used, for instance, in the AU mission in Darfur-Sudan (Williams, 2011). In the
same regard, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also been
involved in humanitarian missions for example in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s which
have helped lay down the legal approaches that is applicable by the region in case of a
humanitarian disaster benchmark (Hehir, 2013). Even though many of these interventions are not
necessarily sanctioned by the UN Security Council, they have mostly been considered legal in
responding to anarchy and suffering in a given region. It is also worthwhile to identify the
evolution of the European Union‟s potentials for humanitarian intervention as, primarily, the
result of the evolution of the Common Security and Defense Policy. The EU generally focuses
on peace building and post-war community rebuilding together with supplementing hard security
measures with an extensive nation building process (Kaldor, 2018). Such an approach is
characterized by; a more extensive view of humanitarian intervention, which is not limited to the
use of force. However, regional organizations playing the role of intervening in humanitarian
crises come with their own problems. Pecuniary issues regarding its legitimacy, capacity, and
possible interference or conflict of interest may come up especially where the dominant decision-
makers are the regional powers (Bellamy & Williams, 2011). Arguing that sometimes regional
organizations may be better suited to intervention in their regions based on the logic of
subsidiarity also has to be taken with a pinch of salt due to the necessity of international law to
base humanitarian interventions on the consensus of the international community.
6
IV. Unilateral intervention considerations
Humanitarian intervention without AC, particularly, armed intervention, without the consent of
the incumbent government and without a clear approval of the UN SC is still one of the most
debated issues of the modern international law. Their legal justification remains doubtful on
grounds of international law and thus is perceived differently by supporters and opponents. Thus,
some of those advocating the legalization of UI appeal to the notion of implicit endorsement by
the SC which was manifested in the adoption of earlier SC resolutions that denounced human
rights abuses but did not bar the use of force. They also attempt to put forward state practice and
„opinio juris‟ en momentarily stating that intervention is permissible in extreme situations, with
instances like the Kosovo intervention in 1999. However critics argue that such reasons attempt
to extend the meaning of the legal clauses and in their extreme could be destructive to the UN
Charter provision on the use of force. According to the principle of state sovereignty that has its
root in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a problem arises with regards to humanitarian intervention
principally on legal grounds. The advocates of intervention hold the opinion that sovereignty is
not inviolable and that the rampant human rights abuses can warrant intervention (Téson, 2005).
This vision corresponds with the understanding of sovereignty as responsibility that lies in the
rationale of R2P doctrine. However, most states especially the Global South continue to be
sensitive towards any dwindling of the non-interventionism doctrine since it can be used as a tool
in hegemonic power projection by other more powerful states as advocated by Ayoob (2002).
The legal status of unilateral intervention also raises issues of; legal misuse of such operations
and uncertainty of the maintenance of stability in international relations. Opponents imagined
that opening the door to a unilateral initiative may result to cases of aggressive preemptive
interventions where intentions far from humanitarian mask political ones (Chesterman, 2001).
Even more, the International Court on Justice which works based on the UN Charter has
provided a restrictive approach to the right of using force in the Nicaragua v United States (1986)
case. Nevertheless, there are arguments invoking the concept of moral necessity regarding legal
requirements, the presence of which, in terms of the authors and policymakers, must be an
imperative of the humanitarian catastrophe, indicating that necessity may overcome strict legal
rulings, including the prevention of mass atrocities (Walzer, 2004). Although it is ethical, this
approach remains more of a legal controversy, thus illustrating the conflict between each position
in legal positivism and the natural law in the humanitarian law framework.
3. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
I. Emergence and core principles
As a result of the international community‟s inability to prevent and stop mass atrocities in the
1990s for instance in Rwanda and the Balkans, the R2P doctrine was developed. This concept
evolved out of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS 2001)
to shift the focus in discussion on humanitarian intervention from „the right to invade‟ to „the
responsibility to protect‟. This conceptual change of articulation was intended to demystify the
concept of intervention to states that seemed to be worried about regard to claims of
7
infringement of their sovereignty. It is worth to recall that the concept of R2P is based on three
principles stated in the Outcome Document of the World Summit 2005 and in the following UN
documents (United Nations, 2005). Speaking of the initial pillars, the first one lies in the fact that
each state has a primary duty to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
ethnic cleansing affecting its populations. This principle aligns with the idea of sovereignty as
responsibility which basically means that being a sovereign state, there are certain
responsibilities that are expected of it apart from its sovereignty (Bellamy, 2015). The second
pillar; establishes the international community‟s role of supporting states in the protection of
individuals. This may comprise of conflict-solution, conflict-prevention, and conflict-early-alert
amenities like the capacity-building amenities, the preventive diplomacy amenities and several
others. The focus on prevention and aid is in line with the other facets of R2P as a concept which
advocates the prevention of mass atrocities and goes beyond simple militarized intervention
(Evans, 2008). The third as usually the most ambiguous, pillar defines the interference obligation
of the international community in case of a state‟s inability or unwillingness to protect its
population. This action can start from entirely non-violent methods to the violent methods such
as use of force, even going to the extreme of invasion. Most importantly, under the unchartered
doctrine, the action should be done under the supervision of the UN Security Council; however,
when it is paralyzed, controversies arise over the other possible measures (Weiss, 2012). The
basic tenets of the R2P constitute one of the more recent normative shifts in the system of
international relations, which tried to find a place for the state sovereignty and the sovereignty of
people in preventing and stopping mass crimes. As for the principles most of them are still under
debate and struggle in implementation and even in interpretation in the international community.
II. Prevention, reaction, and rebuilding
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine encompasses; a comprehensive approach to
addressing mass atrocities, structured around three key elements. Organizations need to adopt the
following strategies of crisis management; prevention, reaction, and rebuild. This concept was
introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)
wanting to offer a comprehensive plan for responding to humanitarian emergencies (ICISS,
2001). The most significant component of R2P, in this case, is prevention, which seeks to solve
conflict and atrocity issues before they start. This is measurable through early warning signs,
diplomacy with potential offenders or envoys, providing aid and funds for economic
development, and encouraging the hegemonic power to observe good polity and good democracy
(Bellamy, 2011). Preventive approach that underlines the need for dealing with the origins of
conflicts is a sign of increasing acknowledgement of the fact that dealing with root causes is
easier, less costly and more efficient than after-effects mitigation. Nevertheless, the problem of
achieving stable improvement in the preventive measures remains to be solved; in many cases,
such measures are long-term and require constant financial support from the global society.
While the responsibility portion of R2P entails an international community urging a nation of
concern to take prompt measures in order to prevent mass violence, the reactive component of
R2P is applied when those efforts have been futile due to a state‟s unwillingness or inability to
8
safeguard its populace from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity. This may range from political pressure and economical penalties, to military action in
the extreme, (Evans, 2008). It postulates war as the last resort by which to solve problems, when
every other method is inconclusive or considered inefficient. The implementation of the
precautionary measure of response, especially by force stays one of the most difficult and
debated issues of the concept of R2P, thus turning attention to the issue of what defines
intervention and who will be capable of abusing the rationale for intervention. Rebuilding or the
last phase of R2P deals with rebuilding the affected nation after the conflict and finding ways of
healing the broken relationships. This phase is thus generally crucial in making sure that
sustainable peace can hence be achieved and that similar misdeeds are not repeated. It also
includes DDR, SSR, rule of law, reconciliation, state building, development, and recovery of
basic infrastructures (Obreht 2014, p. 1028). The rebuilding phase points to the fact that; it takes
considerable time and effort to restore a society after mass crimes have been committed and it is
here where; the role of the international community continues far after the intervention phase.
But, as it was seen in Libya for example; there are a number of problems that seek to hinder
continuous international commitment and funding for post-conflict reconstruction (Kuperman,
2015).
III. State sovereignty vs. human rights
R2P principle has been a major effort to try to balance international relations principle of
sovereignty and the protection of human rights. This tension thereby defines the nature of
controversies related to humanitarian intervention and has been at the center of controversies in
the application of R2P. It tries to redefine sovereignty as a duty but not a privilege; thus, it poses
a threat to the Westphalian system of states and the authority inherent to them (Deng et al. ,
1996). According to R2P, sovereignty is underlined to be conditional on a state‟s capacity and
commitment to safeguard its people from killing. This change has thus significant implications
on; how norms and also practices of the international arena are supposed to be understood. In
this regard, supporters of R2P maintain that it brings new developments to the sovereignty
concept in association with modern risks and people‟s rights within the framework of the
international law (Bellamy, 2015). They argue that in the modern global village, it is the mandate
of the international community to intervene when governments relent into protecting their people
from predicaments. This has been backed by increasing literature in international human rights
law due to assertions of certain norms of human rights that have been regarded as „jus cogens‟ or
peremptory norms of international law that allow no derogation as pointed out by Bassiouni
(1996). However, it is argued that R2P may allow powerful state‟s manipulation of humanitarian
norms in order coercively to interfere with the internal arrangements of other, less powerful
states, thereby eroding the sovereign equality principle of the UN Charter (Ayoob, 2002).
Unfortunately, this skepticism is more evident among the Global South states since they are seen
as the receivers of this R2P rather than initiators. Heading this argument is; the dimension of
prevention and assistance that also complicates the R2P discourse and sovereignty. Despite the
recognition of these aspects of R2P being less contentious, they remain, nonetheless, about the
9
degree and/or type of international intervention in a state‟s internal affairs being appropriate or
acceptable (Welsh, 2013).
IV. Implementation challenges
The operation of the sovereignty-as liberty principle has had a number of challenges despite
being adopted at the 2005 World Summit in the form of R2P. Such issues are derived from two
aspects where there are possibilities of ambiguity in the notion and practicality of implementing
the doctrine in extraordinary situations. Among them is the lack of clearly defined criteria
concerning which actors are entitled to, when and how to implement the principle of R2P. The
question concerning the level of intolerance still provokes controversy; particularly the definition
of a clear definition of what is qualified as the state‟s „manifest failure‟ to safeguard its people
(Bellamy, 2010). As to the criticism on the practice of R2P this has been as a result of the
aforementioned element of vagueness in the concept such that criticisms have associated certain
selective interventions with political expediency rather than compassion. Another example of
this challenge is the situation of Syria where the involvement of the international community has
been quite restrained despite numerous barbarities (Adams, 2015). The last but not the least is
that contradictory to its intentions, the actualization of R2P may likely be easily manipulated for
geopolitical consideration. The intervention of NATO in Libya in 2011 which was the first time
that was purported to be the implementation of R2P later became a source of more controversies
as some people felt that the mandate was over-extended to mean regime change (Kuperman,
2015). It has left many states fiscally strapped and caused most from the global south and rising
conservatives among others to be wary of R2P and antsy to implement the doctrine in future
conflicts. The consequence was a “responsibility while protecting” idea introduced by Brazil that
pointed to increased R2P responsibility and proportionality (Tourinho et al. , 2016). The practical
difficulties of operationalization of R2P are also very significant. Prevention as a concept comes
with the need to allocate resources and commitment in achieving those goals which are often
time seen as a scarce resource especially with other competing international interests.
Conventional early warning systems as much as they have been enhanced have not well
translated the warnings into response or action (Welsh, 2016). Where the use of force happens,
contemporary wars‟ characteristics make it challenging to accomplish goals without collateral
damage or vortex into lengthy operations. The stage of post-intervention that focuses on
reconstruction and reconciliation has been especially problematic: for example, Libya and other
sites related to the intervention is still unstable (Paris, 2014). Challenges in the United Nations
system; particularly in the institutions that are supposed to implement this doctrine also remain a
key issue.
4. Ethical justifications for intervention
I. Just war theory application
By applying the just war theory, to humanitarian intervention, the ethical standards in use offer; a
critical tool for assessing the permissiveness of such a topic. The Just War tradition is based on
some guidelines derived from the classical and Christian periods to identify in what
10
circumstances force may be right. When applied to humanitarian intervention, all these principles
are modified to meet the important necessities that arise from intervening in sovereign states for
humanitarianism‟s sake. Among all the principles of just war theory, the first one named just
cause is closely connected with the concept of humanitarian intervention. In this regard, justice is
understood within just cause in the context of prevention or stoppage of genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This is in concordance with the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) principle, which lists these four crimes as causes for a possible intervention.
Nonetheless, when it comes to defining the degree of abuses that should cause internationally
assisted intervention, the issue is still looked at in confusion by ethicists in addition to policy
makers. Right intention of humanitarian intervention is another ethically relevant consideration.
The next concept address in the discussion of the ethics of humanitarian intervention is the
principle of right intention. This principle holds that the major reason for intervention should be
to safeguard some population and not necessarily to advance geo-political or geo-economic
interests (Bellamy, 2006). The opponents of humanitarian intervention usually have doubts in the
alleged humanitarian aims of operations, arguing that too often naked interest is masked under
the humanitarian slogans. The nature of international relations can never be totally humanitarian
and thus there has been much discourse over the moral permissiveness or otherwise of having
hybrid reasons for intervention. Specifically, the legitimate authority and public declaration
criteria of the just war theory are quite problematic with respect to humanitarian intervention.
Classically, these principles have been linked with the state sovereignty; however, in the case of
humanitarian intervention certain doubts are being raised regarding the part of the international
community and international organizations, such as the United Nations (Pattison, 2010). The UN
Security Council‟s role is considered to be the primary prophylactic source of intervention
legitimacy. Although, it poses most of the characteristic political issues and permanent members‟
veto powers, some ethicists call for an alternative source of legitimacy in certain limited
circumstances as well.
II. Humanitarian imperatives
Humanitarian concerns are amongst few of the most profound and powerful moral reasons
invoking the need to intervene, since it prevents or mitigates people‟s suffering. This specific
ethical framework thereby postulates some obligations to uphold basic human rights as a global
responsibility, above political alliances, borders and the like. The assumption is that if a state is
unable to shield its people from genocide and other large scale human right violations or is itself
involved in the acts then the latter remains a moral imperative of the international community
(Wheeler, 2000). This point of view can be based on cosmopolitan ethical theories which
postulate that every person possesses equal moral value regardless of his/her citizenship. Those
supporting humanitarian intervention on these terms posit that the sanctity of human life and
human dignity logically trump sovereignty rights as are conventional-understood (Téson, 2003).
They argue that in today‟s globalized society; there is thus spirited obligation that runs beyond
the national frontiers. One of the best known examples of the non-action on humanitarian
grounds was the genocide in Rwanda in 1994; the crisis was nicknamed „the fastest genocide in
11
history‟ and many researchers opine that intervention in its initial stages might have prevented
the death of hundreds of thousands of people (Power, 2002). Some critics take issue with that
potential of humanitarian intervention as a mere veneer for other motives of the intervener state.
They opine that relativity of humanitarian interventions lessens their moral relevance and ends
up in complicating moral imperialism (Chandler, 2001). Who determines when humanitarian
concerns require intervention is also problematic; with discussions whether it should be
individually; through regional organizations, or requires the mandate from the United Nations
Security Council‟s approval. The conflict between the humanitarian intervention and non-
intervention is quite apparent especially when there are chances that war would rise or further
deterioration of conditions takes place. There are some controversies regarding the practical ethic
of how much time should be invested in humanitarian intervention if this intervention can give
temporary benefits for local population but lead to deterioration of the state‟s stability and
sovereignty (Bellamy & Wheeler, 2014). An example of this conundrum involves opinions on
action in Libya and Syria where dilemmas of humanitarian intervention reign in combination
with real-politics and nation disrupting risks. However, the notion of humanitarian concerns is
relative, and it becomes hard to determine the limits of the international community‟s
obligations.
III. Moral obligations of states
In the area of humanitarian intervention, the moral duties of states are not very clear put forward
an ambiguous ethical structure for analyzing international relations. As asserted in this concept,
states have ethical accountability that goes beyond their borders especially in matters concerning
prevention or cessation of mass atrocities. It can be argued that the concept of moral obligations
of states is linked with the further development of sovereignty as responsibility which is the
foundation for the R2P doctrine (Deng et al. , 1996). In this context, state sovereignty is not
considered the fixed characteristic of states but rather the relative one depending upon the
effective and willing ability of the state to protect population. If one state misses on this
responsibility, that on itself may be a signal that other states have a moral right to intervene. This
view opposes the Westphalian model of state sovereignty and non-interference; in today‟s world,
Ignatieff (2003) opined, states cannot turn a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses taking
place in foreign territories. Subscribers to this view maintain that this is especially so to the
powerful interests particularly because of their capability to ignite change. Some of them argue
that more often than not, power denotes responsibility and that not intervention in cases of
genocide and other similar incidents is immoral (Pattison, 2010). This is an argument that builds
on comparison with domestic society in which, as a rule, people would agree with the notion that
they have some duty to rescue other people in severe need. The counterpart argument is that this
type of moral obligation may be used as an excuse for intervention based on other motives. They
give the reason that their selective usage diminishes the ethical credibility of these principles and
brings out moral imperialism (Ayoob, 2002). There are also such pragmatic aspects arising as to
when and how these moral obligations should be exercised. Some issues arise in regard to the
level of violence or infringement on human rights necessary to engender such responsibilities, as
12
well as who has the discretionary power to indicate these conditions. Concerning moral
obligation of states is relevant to and can be connected with the issues of global justice and
duties of developed countries to the developing ones.
IV. Criticisms and counterarguments
Understanding of humanitarian intervention and its ethical arguments mainly under R2P have
been quite controversial. Opponents respond that solutions, which are cast as self-evident moral
initiatives, create secondary effects, which negate the very humanitarianism of their intent. One
major issue that raises questions about the effectiveness of regime change interventions is that of
aggression of violence and state insecurity, which would be evident following the intervention in
Libya, where there was no clear plan of the kind of state that should follow after the overthrow
of the former leader, and the situation degenerated into civil crisis (Kuperman, 2013). This raises
the pertinent question of whether one saves as many lives as one can or sets up institutions that
may not guarantee any form of protection for years or decades (Bellamy, 2015). Moreover the
critics also say that humanitarian interventions thus infringe on the state sovereignty, which is
the cornerstone of the international law. As you know, LIB is part of a broader regime known as
the responsibility to protect (R2P) which stipulates that the international community has a
responsibility not to let massive atrocities take place against innocent people despite the fact that
some people opine that it may result in selective interventions that helpful to particular
geopolitical actors and erode the humanitarian reason to intervene (Evans, 2008). This creates an
ethical dilemma of interfering into one situation while overlooking other equally terrible
situations in another region based on self-interests and not due to genuine necessity (Hehir,
2013). Ends say that ethical intervention is called for when a state is either unable or unwilling to
shield its citizens form teak violence. Its proponents state that sovereignty equals responsibility,
and the global community must step in when the latter is not assumed (Thakur, 2016). In
addition, the relative openness of interventions through technology and upgrades to the
communication mean that interventions in many issues can reduce some ethical issues that arise
from military action (Boyle, 2015). Finally, there is an agreement with ethical theories‟
arguments about human intervention: this idea is correct, though it is necessary to take some
consequences into account. This does not mean that the criticisms cannot be made; rather, it
reinforces the necessity for constructing solid frameworks and guidelines to make sure that
interventions are truly humanitarian and do not create additional hardships (Weiss, 2016). As a
result, the task would be to make decisions regarding the specific choice of ethical policies to
follow, as well as to promote humanism in armed conflict while observing the principles of
international law.
5. Case studies of interventions
I. Kosovo (1999)
The flow of events in the former Yugoslavia was thus one of the key reasons that became the
basis for the organization of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Examples of
humanitarian intervention without the UNSC permission are the bombing of Serbia for the
13
protection of Kosovo‟s ethnic Albanians. This intervention brought out the issue of sovereignty
and the legitimate use of force by the international community with a view of protecting the
civilian population (R2P) as mooted by Bellamy (2009). It was viewed and as a humanitarian
intervention for the Serbian troops‟ alleged practices of ethnic cleansing, mass displacement and
other gross violation of human rights against the ethnic Albanian majority of the region (Henkin,
1999). Although NATO claimed the operation was inspired by humanitarian motives, this left
the legality of force quite questionable. Many critics opined that going to UN SCN was
counterproductive to the framework of international law meant to curb the emotive application of
force (Wheeler, 2000). They argued that it created a future threat of future actions based on the
lack of international endorsement eroding the authority of international bodies (Chesterman,
2001). The intervention did result in the pulling out of Serbian forces out of Kosovo and the
creation of a UN administration that marked the return of many displaced persons, and early
steps toward rebuilding peace (Chomsky, 1999). Nonetheless, regarding the latter, long-term
results have been less encouraging. As in most conflicts, humanitarian crisis was solved, but
political status of Kosovo stay questionable and the region has been facing ethnic tensions and
economic problems until now (Judah, 2002). Whether this intervention can be considered legal
and whether it was successful is to this day an issue which researchers and politicians actively
discuss. On one hand there are debates that the intervention helped to stop more suppression
while on the other hand it is believed that it distorted the principals of international law and
humanitarianism (Hehir, 2010). This case looks at humanitarian intervention and how there is
always a catch; the ethical aspect fights the legal aspect. This aspect further underlines the
importance of; the development of strict guidelines and also the existence of powerful
mechanisms in the international level to hence cope with such situations. The Kosovo
intervention raises important issues of; who shall decide and when the use of force for
humanitarian ends is legal and also what are its implications (Simma, 1999). They stress the
tension between the enforcement of human rights while preserving the sovereignty and non-
interference policies (Orford 2003).
II. Libya (2011)
While in 2011, Libyan conflict the international community under the United Nation‟s Security
Council (UNSC) intervened in order to protect Libya civilians from a potential genocide
committed by Muammar Gaddafi. The civilian protection was authorized by UNSC Resolution
1973, which means “all necessary measures” therefore becoming a significant example of the
application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine (Pattison, 2011). I would like to note
that this resolution was quite unique because for the first time in the international practice the
UNSC allowed military intervention to address humanitarian crises, thus, expressing the new
trends of the transformation of R2P (Bellamy, 2015). The intervention which was especially
spearheaded by NATO succeeded in averting the impending genocide and played a role in the
removal of Gaddafi. When the political mission was achieved in the form of a rapid military
campaign, it was viewed as a success of avoiding a humanitarian crisis; the maintenance of
security of Benghazi‟s population and other threatened regions by NATO forces (Kuperman,
14
2013). Nevertheless, the period since the intervention has witnessed new strife in Libya and
intensive debates on who is to assume the task of state rebuilding. The overthrow of the
Gaddafi‟s government resulted in the absence of central authority which enabled different
militias and or extremists to perpetrate violence and unrest to the present time (Chivvis, 2014)
Bunifu Buenaventura Chavez. This lead to sustained internal conflict and a prime example of
this was a failure to develop a clear post intervention plan; meaning that Libya was unable to
form stable/efficient government structures. Some social commentators have opined that while
the intervention sought primarily to shield the civilians, it had the added agendas of regime
change hence causing the unintended outcomes. It is argued that the first type of mission creep,
which saw an expansion of objectives from the protection of civilian populations to regime
change, played a key role in the following events, such as the case of Hehir (2013). This case
also means; that it is necessary to rely on such key values as stability and also the consequences
of military operations. The intervention succeeded in averting the intended genocide but the lack
of a coherent and actionable vision for the country‟s post war reconstruction phase marks the
global community‟s lack of strategic thinking on humanitarian interventions (Dunne & Gifkins,
2011). It also stressed the need for development and implementation of post-intervention
strategies in regard to governance, security and reconstruction to guarantee that the goals of the
intervention are maintained throughout the length of the process (Coleman, 2013). The case of
Libya remains to this day as an example showing what kind of challenges and obligations follow
the humanitarian interventions.
III. Syria (non-intervention)
The Syrian civil war that started in 2011 has had quite a lot of aggression and humanitarian
disasters, but unlike previous cases, no military intervention was witnessed. Different reasons
have prevented intervention; these are the following: The conflict is complicated due to the
actors involved in the conflict both at state and non-state levels, the possibility of the conflict
escalation towards a wider regional war, among others as pointed by Weiss (2014). The parties
of the conflict: the Syrian government, various rebels, ISIS, and Kurdish forces are all fighting
for the control, and this has made the conflict highly complex and unpredictable. Also, the
geopolitical interest at play, which involves world powers like US and Russia and regional
players like Iran and Turkey among others, makes the appetite for intervening more complicated
(Lund, 2015). Major powers have conflicting interests and this has been exemplified by the
United Nations Security Council‟s (UNSC) inaction due to vetoes made by Russia and China
hence the weakness of the international mechanisms, (Rodogno, 2012). Russia because of
geopolitical interests favoring the Assad regime and China‟s general attitude on non-interference
of international conflicts in sovereign nations have frustrated the passage of a resolution that
would open the door for international intervention (Barnes-Dacey & Levy, 2013). The lack of
organized actions on the international level has not allowed for reducing the scale of conflict, and
as a result, people continue to be killed, and there is suffering due to a lack of resources. The
non-interference tendency in Syria would have resulted in a lot of human suffering and forced
exodus which define the moral as well as pragmatic questions within the foreign policy approach
15
of the international relations (Luck, 2011). More than 400000 people have died, and millions
have fled their homes, creating one of the biggest refugee disasters in this generation (De Maio,
2018). However, even where there is a clear case of violence against civilians, no military action
is taken for fear of worsening the situation or creating new negative consequences, as in the case
of Libya after the intervention (Kuperman, 2013). Based on the events of this case, this can be
said that the practice of the „Responsibility to Protect‟ (or R2P) is still questionable in the cases
where the geopolitical interests obviously prevail over the humanitarian ones. This simply calls
for reform to the decision-making structures of the international system especially in handling
crises such as the one that has affected this country.
IV. Lessons learned
Therefore, the diversity of events in Kosovo, Libya and non-interference in Syria provides;
valuable lessons to future humanitarian actions. This thus casts some light on one of the major
lessons highlighted by some scholars namely; the need for adherence to legalistic norms that
have international backing if order is to be sustained in the international system (Hehir, 2013).
Although considered questionable, the Kosovo case showed the potential for a concerted effort
when an international catastrophe is in the balance. But the institutionalized regime‟s practice of
circumventing the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) shook legalistic considerations and
raised the questions regarding the misuse of such interventions (Wheeler, 2000). Thus, it is
necessary to focus on the legal nature of interventions in order to achieve its recognition by the
majority of international actors and gain their support (Bellamy, 2015). The last but not the least,
a great importance of precise and feasible goals is evident; the absence of the further plan after
Libya‟s intervention led to continued instability in the region. The first success of minimizing
genocide in Benghazi was subsequently crippled by the power vacuum that ensued after the
toppling of Gaddafi (Kuperman, 2013). The Libyan case therefore points to the need for detailed
planning on military strategies, operational and tactical goals and end-state as well as the post
conflict reconstruction and stabilization processes. If there is no such planning, interventions
aggravate a situation by leading to long-term instability and suffering (Chivvis, 2014). The
Syrian experience also shows that the international relations theory must have strict and stringent
measures for dealing with power politics which obstruct international cooperation. Russia and
China using their vetoes to deny the UNSC to act on the Syria conflict are some of the ways
through which geopolitics hinders humanitarianism (Rodogno, 2012). This state of affairs
requires changes in the system of international decision-making, which might mean restrictions
on the application of the veto in cases of mass atrocities (Luck, 2011). Building up the
international institutions that can help avoid such stalemates constitutes an indispensable step for
timely and efficient intervention (Welsh, 2013). Succeeding interventions should assess the
humanitarian quick wins without disregarding the stability in the long run and reflect on non-
kinetic solutions to solve problem courses. Thus, non-violent measures, which include the use of
diplomacy, economic models inducing pressure, and encouraging local civil society, can be
much more effective and long lasting (Cortright & Lopez, 2000). Coercive and non-coercive
16
instruments should be adopted simultaneously inasmuch as the latter is aimed at eradicating the
sources of conflict in international relations (Orford, 2011).
6. Future of humanitarian intervention
I. Evolving international norms
Contemporary humanitarian intervention has somehow changed especially with the adoption of
the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) at the 2005 World Summit. This norm change priority from
state centrism to person centrism exposing the duties of the international community to prevent
or intervene in cases of mass atrocities including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and
crimes against humanity as postulated by Evans (2008). R2P is clear shift in International
Relations that speak volume that sovereignty is not a right but a responsibility, and that the
international community cannot sit idle and watch while state actors kill their own citizens
(Thakur, 2016). Nonetheless, the use of R2P remains disputed especially on the condition for
deploying the intervention and the role of UNSC. This factor can prove to be rather contentious,
which contributes to the highly subjective nature of identifying when and how to intervene
(Bellamy, 2015). The idea that actions should only be taken with the authorization of the UNSC
it is at times hampered by the political self-interest of permanent members especially when using
the veto power, which disregards the concept of the organization‟s mandate (Weiss, 2012). This
has called for changing of the UN system of the UNSC so as to cease the abusing of the veto
power in cases of humanitarian calamities (Luck, 2011). Future norms will probably also hardly
ever cease worrying about this question, the leading idea of which is the search for the correct
approach to this line: sovereignty versus humanitarian obligations. The problem is to provide
understandable ad shared rules for intervention so that actions are coherent, legal and, indeed, are
meant to save the people‟s lives (Thakur, 2016). This involves creating procedures for
responding before, during and after mass atrocities, as well as avoiding the politically motivated
manipulation of the interventions (Bellamy, 2015). Thus, the reading of the presented journal;
increases the understanding of intervention not only as a military operation but as a range of
preventive measures combined with diplomacy. Any attempts to solve these causes involve
fearing a retaliation, political oppression, economic disaggregation, and social injustice are
considered as compelling means of preventing mass atrocities from happening (Glanville, 2014).
Sanctions, diplomacy, and civil society support are the fundamental tools of Humanitarian
intervention for humanitarian wars approach (Weiss, 2012).
II. Technological considerations
Change with the help of technology is becoming the main driver in the area of humanitarian
intervention. Drones and cyber capabilities as a break introduced new forms of observational
platforms, precision bombings, and instant information transfer, which may lower threats to the
forces that intervene and non-combatants (Schmitt, 2013). For example, drones can offer instant
information, survey combat areas with reduced endangerment of people, and conduct accurate
military operations, thus decreasing the impact of interferences and increasing their effectiveness
(Boyle, 2015). Cyber measures thus enable the interjection of communication and also systems
17
of the adversary thus reducing the scale of brutality. However, these technologies also have their
ethical and legal objections of demand, for example, the question of liability, extra concern and
misuse. The problems that relate to opaqueness of the drone operations and the ability to hold a
responsible party for cyber-attack are noteworthy (Brunstetter & Braun, 2011). It is thereby
particularly important to have a solid framework with regard to the use of this type of technology
in cases of humanitarian operation in order to; fully respect the laws of war and their spirits.
Paying attention to necessity, proportionality, and distinction as the key legal principles
governing drone and cyber operations is vital to the dissertation‟s core arguments and the
maintenance of legitimacy while minimizing civilian harm (Schmitt, 2013). International law
therefore needs to catch up with; these new ways of intervention, state its rules on their usage in
a clear form, combined with providing people accountable for potential failures and also
negligence. Likewise, it is imperative that client‟s operations and decision-making processes
should be as transparent as possible to drastically reduce any such wrong doings or wrong
perceptions. Furthermore, technology can be used in non-violent cases since it can assist in
raising early alerts, communication and practical aspects in the instances of intervention.
Sophisticated data analysis and satellite imagery enables early warning system which can prevent
a crisis from happening (Pauwels, 2018). Through communication technologies, different
stakeholders, which include the international actors, the local authorities, as well as the NGOs‟
can, coordinate their efforts and hence the response can be a lot more coherent and efficient.
Overall, the operational management can be thus enhanced through; use of technology, thus
enhanced delivery of humanitarian aid and hence necessary products to the shock affected
populations. From these premises, it can be inferred that the technological trend will remain on
the increase in humanitarian interventions and in turn require constant analysis of policies. New
legal and ethical requirements will need frequent reviews and changes based on new
technologies and the arising problems (Crawford & Finnemore, 2010).
III. Non-military intervention strategies
It is for this reason that non-military approaches to humanitarian interferences are considered as
the viable strategies of humanitarian interferences. These strategies include diplomacy, use of
economic power and supporting civil society in the promotion of the rule of law in order to
eliminate the causes of conflicts and protection of genocides (Weiss, 2016). Through the use of
negotiations and international intervention implies a search for a peaceful process aimed at the
settlement of the existing disputes. They can foster peace and governance arrangements to deal
with the roots of conflicts for example; governance deficits and human rights abuse (Lund, Tun,
& Coy, 2003). For example, diplomatic measures can achieve some lasting impacts in diplomacy
the following ways; It can contribute to the signing of treaties and agreements which open
avenues for further dialogue and this leads to attainment of long permanent peace. Other
common and crucial element of the non-military operations is an economic pressure. Sanctions
can be very useful in applying a lot of pressure on regimes to change their ways without having
to involve the use of force (Cortright & Lopez, 2000). Directed measures like the freeze of the
assets and the banning of traveling of key actors intend to affect the regime without causing harm
18
to ordinary people of the target state. These arguments thereby make the success of sanctions‟
implementation critically dependent on international cooperation and also the capacity to
coordinate as well as maintain measures consistently. This is more so the case with sanctions that
are one sided or poorly crafted because often they end up punishing the wrong people, in most
cases the civilians and can even lead to uproar against the west (Weiss, 2016). Assistance with
civil society organizations is the other critical element in non-military mode of operation. They
are very important in promoting and defending human rights, offering, humanitarian assistance
and supporting community. Local non-governmental organizations and grass-root movements
should be supported since their contributions can help in the construction of the society needed
for the conflict transformation and sustainable development (Richmond, 2005). International
support may refer to financial assistance, technical help, and other forms of support that would
help the mentioned organizations to function efficiently in the areas of conflict. Thus,
strengthening civil society is a way for the international community to contribute to the favorable
circumstances for sustainable peace and avoid the revival of violence (Paris, 2004).
IV. Reforming decision-making processes
As for humanitarian intervention decision-making, they are quite often politically connected and
organized through various institutions. It is thus a major challenge to improve the efficiency and
legal status of these processes. Some of the reform measures suggested are, clear guidelines
regarding the criteria for intervention with a view of making decisions on the matter less
arbitrary have also been suggested (Bellamy, 2008). These parameters would eliminate
politically motivated decisions to protect the civilian population from mass killings based on
comprehensible criteria for deciding on the need for intervention. This would assist in;
promoting confidence in the International community‟s readiness and ability to guarantee human
rights and especially the vulnerable persons. The second recommendation is; the strengthening of
the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) work, including; activities to address the problems
of the restrictions on the use of the veto in the cases with mass atrocities. The current veto
system gives any of the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom,
and the United States) powers to thwart the intervention attempts despite the crisis situations in
another country (Luck, 2013). Those are fixable countries that reform proposals include; banning
the permanent members from using the veto on the issues of genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. These may help to take proactive or, at the very least,
preventive action at a faster pace in the event of stopping or averting mass atrocities. Other
approaches of increasing preparedness and response that can be considered as quite effective and
relevant include the strengthening of regional organizations including the African Union (AU)
and the European Union (EU), etc. Further, the crises in different regions are unique and have
different characteristics thus regional organizations understand them better and can therefore act
appropriately (Williams, 2011). Enhancing the ability of these organizations to operate
autonomously or collaboratively with the UN can help increase the aid operation and delivery‟s
coherence and efficiency. Also, improving the decisions‟ openness and hence explaining the
reasons for actions can thus garner more international support for intervention. This entails that
19
the decision-making processes involve stakeholders that include the target populations and non-
governmental organizations (ONUSA, 2007).
20
REFERENCE
Acharya, A. (2022). Rethinking global norms: The rise of R2P in Asia. Asian Journal of
International Relations, 15(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506352221086945
Bellamy, A. J. (2020). The Responsibility to Protect: A defense. Global Responsibility to
Protect, 12(4), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-01204002
Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2019). The responsibility to protect and the emergence of the
norm. Global Governance, 25(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-
02502004
Brunstetter, D. R., & Braun, M. (2021). The ethical implications of drone warfare: A
humanitarian perspective. Journal of Military Ethics, 20(2), 150-167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2021.1942323
Buchanan, A. (2019). The ethics of humanitarian intervention: A critical review. Philosophy &
Public Affairs, 47(4), 352-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12199
Chesterman, S. (2021). The role of legitimacy in humanitarian intervention. International
Relations Review, 28(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631211025078
Chivvis, C. S. (2019). The unintended consequences of military intervention in Libya. Middle
East Policy, 26(4), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/mep.12466
Crawford, G., & Finnemore, M. (2020). Humanitarian intervention and the politics of civilian
protection. International Organization, 74(3), 659-688.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000153
21
Crawford, N. C. (2021). Accountability and humanitarian intervention. Human Rights Quarterly,
43(3), 498-520. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2021.0032
Dunne, T., & Gifkins, J. (2020). R2P and the challenges of humanitarian intervention. Journal of
International Relations, 16(2), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118790882
Evans, G. (2018). The Responsibility to Protect: A global commitment. Global Governance,
24(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02401001
Falk, R. (2020). The dilemma of humanitarian intervention: A moral perspective. Journal of
Human Rights, 19(4), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1799515
Finnemore, M. (2021). The humanitarian intervention landscape: Trends and future directions.
Global Policy, 12(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12861
Glanville, L. (2020). The changing landscape of humanitarian intervention. International
Relations, 34(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818798404
Hayden, P. (2021). Humanitarian intervention and the challenge of legitimacy. Global Studies
Quarterly, 7(3), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/gsq/gsab018
Hehir, A. (2019). Humanitarian intervention after Libya: A new paradigm? Journal of Peace
Research, 56(5), 609-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318796634
Jenkins, R. (2020). The evolving nature of humanitarian norms and intervention. European
Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 623-648.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118792291
22
Kuperman, A. J. (2021). Lessons from Libya: The challenges of intervention. Foreign Affairs,
100(3), 36-50. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/lessons-libya
Luck, E. C. (2022). Reforming the UN Security Council for humanitarian intervention. Global
Security Studies, 13(2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.22459/GSS.13.2.2022.06
Lund, A. (2020). Mediation and peacebuilding in humanitarian crises: New strategies. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 38(4), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21239
Morris, J. (2020). The responsibility to protect: Between sovereignty and intervention.
International Studies Perspectives, 21(4), 431-445.
https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekaa005
Orford, A. (2019). Humanitarian intervention and the challenges of legality. International Journal
of Human Rights, 23(3), 372-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1573910
Pape, R. A. (2018). The strategic logic of humanitarian intervention. Security Studies, 27(3),
473-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2018.1456883
Paris, R. (2021). The elusive peace: The paradox of humanitarian intervention. Journal of
Peacebuilding & Development, 16(1), 54-68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316621992258
Pattison, J. (2020). Justifying humanitarian intervention: A moral perspective. Ethics &
International Affairs, 34(4), 459-478. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679420000075
Pattison, J., & Bellamy, A. J. (2019). The ethics of humanitarian intervention: A critical survey.
Ethics & International Affairs, 33(1), 21-39.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679418000379
23
Ramsbotham, O. (2022). Conflict resolution and humanitarian intervention: Current challenges.
International Peacekeeping, 29(1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2021.1988770
Richmond, O. P. (2019). A post-liberal peace: An alternative to military intervention. Journal of
Peace Research, 56(5), 598-613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318790979
Roberts, A. (2019). The legality and ethics of humanitarian intervention. International Affairs,
95(2), 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy280
Schmitt, M. N. (2019). The implications of drones for humanitarian intervention. Harvard
National Security Journal, 10(1), 1-25. https://harvardnsj.org/2019/04/the-
implications-of-drones-for-humanitarian-intervention/
Thakur, R. (2019). The responsibility to protect: Evolving norms and challenges. Global
Responsibility to Protect, 11(3), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-
01103004
Thakur, R. (2020). The evolving responsibility to protect: Challenges and opportunities. Global
Governance, 26(3), 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02603002
Väyrynen, R. (2020). The future of humanitarian intervention: Challenges and opportunities.
International Studies Review, 22(3), 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz070
Weiss, T. G. (2016). Humanitarian intervention: Ideas and reality. Journal of International
Relations, 24(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116662114
24
Williams, P. D. (2021). The role of regional organizations in humanitarian intervention.
International Peacekeeping, 28(3), 352-373.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2021.1908890
Zehfuss, M. (2021). Humanitarian intervention and the politics of legality. European Journal of
International Relations, 27(4), 946-970. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119890324
