The idea of humanitarian
intervention is in contention between IR scholars and the United Nations
itself. Humanitarian intervention can be
viewed as a violation of state sovereignty.
Opponents to humanitarian intervention often quote the UN charter which
states “the Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all
its members.” However, I am of the
opinion that state sovereignty is earned and that humanitarian intervention could
be optimal in the right circumstances.
State sovereignty occurs
when a government is the sole source of authority in a territory and no other
source of authority exists elsewhere.
Where does this authority some from?
Throughout history, different definitions of authority, and therefore
sovereignty, have surfaced. In the Han
Dynasty, the ruler had a mandate of heaven from which he drew his
authority. The people were subordinate to
the king because, in their view, he was chosen by God. In the US, authority is drawn from the Constitution. The US is a nation in which the rule of law,
or supremacy of written law over public officials, exists. In many western democracies, it can be argued
that the authority of the government is drawn from the people. Sovereignty cannot be universally justified
because authority comes from different sources according to different
worldviews. If the principle of state
sovereignty is upheld universally in IR, it can be said that sovereignty is
drawn simply from the fact that a ruler exists and exercises power over the
territory. This implies that power is synonymous
with authority. This idea resembles the
laws of the natural world, in which a strong organism rules simply because it
has power. It can live where it wants,
kill what it wants, and take what it wants because it is able to assert its
power on other organisms. This should
not be the case in IR. Society is an
institution that aims to improve upon the chaos of the natural world. Sovereignty, therefore, should be earned, not
granted by power. Under the doctrine of
the Responsibility to Protect, a state must protect its people from
atrocities. States also deserve help in
protecting their people from atrocity.
However, if the state actively commits atrocity against its people,
member states of the UN have agreed to take decisive action to protect the
people (Ban).
It is necessary that
humanity adopts a global responsibility for the welfare of all people. Should we not provide aid in the form of
medicine and food to needy people because it encroaches on the sovereignty of
an irresponsible or incompetent nation?
I believe that humanitarian intervention can be justified using this same
question. I concede that humanitarian intervention
may not always be the best option. For
example, Syria’s conflict consists of Assad, various rebel groups, and
ISIS. There is no legitimate side to
support. All humanitarian intervention
would accomplish in this circumstance is to saturate the nation with more
weapons and complicate things further.
However, the idea of humanitarian intervention is justifiable. Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban
Ki-moon, shares this viewpoint. In a report,
he concludes that the responsibility to protect is a legitimate concept that
should be carried out with cooperation between the member states of the
UN. He supports the three pillars of the
responsibility to protect, but realizes that it is a new idea that must be
refined in strategy. If the
responsibility to protect is exercised with cooperation between nations, and
each instance of atrocity is carefully analyzed, I agree with the Secretary General. Humanitarian intervention could be a
legitimate action used to enhance the welfare of humanity.
You say that sovereignty is earned but is this the case historically? What if the creation of unearned states is the fault of the West during decolonization? Would it then be hypcritical for the west to question the sovereignty of the state they created in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThe cause of failed states may be the fault of colonialism in some instances, although I'm not sure it is the case for most of the Middle East. Kiefer's recent post was very convincing so I am going to do more research about this. Regardless, I will assume for this post that colonialism is responsible for the failed state. Western governments and coalitions like the UN should not be restrained from legitimately saving lives because of the wrongful actions of their predecessors. No one in western governments today is responsible for the misfortune created in decolonization. We must understand that there is not one "west" in this example. The west that started failed states and the west that I argue has authority to help fix the problem are different entities. I realize that historical identities persist through time, but I do not believe that this is a basis for inaction. If the people of failed states could provide their own security from their government, they should be left to do so. It may look unsightly that white Europeans are trying to "save" the African people once more, but organizations like the UN are established to ensure that these people are not exploited. My definition of sovereignty does not change based on who created the failed state. The only thing I am concerned about is doing the most good now, for we cannot change the wrongdoing of the past.
DeleteYou state that you "concede that humanitarian intervention may not always be the best option," then subsequently go on to list the arguments against intervening in Syria. Just because there is no clear side to support in Syria, do you still believe that should deter the US from getting involved?
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how you address the question of where authority comes from. Without said authority and also legitimacy, the US would not have the grounds to make decisions such as to move into Syria or not. However, the US currently does have authority and legitimacy, and therefore has the power to take the humanitarian action of helping the Syrians.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is also worth noting that the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine directly conflicted with the UN Charter, which stated: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." This, of course, has since been ratified to legitimize 'responsibility to protect.' The problem I see with humanitarian intervention is the ambiguous idea of the use of force. This was the problem that President Obama confronted on Syria, for he wanted to use "the responsibility to protect" as a rationale for humanitarian intervention but wanted to proceed unilaterally without the approval of the UN. This leads to the next problem that, if the United States can take unilateral action in such crises, other countries may legitimately do so as well. If the United States can attack Syria without UN authorization, can Russia or China attack Israel or some other country because of alleged human rights abuses in those places?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Jake, that there are certainly circumstances in which a humanitarian intervention is necessary based on the core principles of the United Nations. I also think that it is important that a basis with which to decide when and how to go in is very necessary to avoid the abuse of this power.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, however, I think that first and foremost the human rights violations must be the first and only reason for these interventions to occur. As soon as an intervention takes place with any other goal in mind, not only does it violate the mission of the United Nations, but it also delegitimizes the prospect of any future aid.
The one point I disagree with you on is the idea of intervention in Syria. I think that because human rights violations are the reason for a humanitarian intervention, when there are atrocities on that scale, just because there is not one front to support does not mean that the UN should not intervene. Granted this would be a much harder task to complete, but if the goal is to provide protection to those who's human rights are being blatantly and repeatedly violated, then that has to be the primary concern.
I agree with your point of that humanitarian intervention is needed in Syria, as I do not see any other single state having the right to intervene without a direct act of war targeted at them. The UN serves as a valuable institution that can help find the balance between violation of sovereignty and prioritizing human rights. However, how does a state or institutions like the UN progress and begin with humanitarian aid with all the struggles on the Security council?
ReplyDelete