While the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ was not explicitly recognised and addressed by the United Nations Charter, some have argued that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security, to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide, breaches of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric.
This article therefore intends to examine in some detail whether contemporary international law imposes a duty on states to intervene in a third state such as Syria where mass crimes including crimes against humanity or war crimes et al are being perpetrated, although within the confines of the United Nations legal regime. The article will address this matter over two parts with the concluding part published next week.
..................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION
The UN General Assembly on the legality of intervention once recognised that: "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of any other states...all forms of interference or threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic or cultural elements are in violation of international law”. It is said that signatories to the UN Charter have delegated their right to unilateral enforcement to the UN, save on the grounds of self-defence where states are allowed to respond to the attack in the circumstances. The Security Council is thus endowed with the responsibility of undertaking executive action in order to prevent, punish a threat to or breach of the peace or act of aggression. The difficulty in ascertaining when an armed conflict constitutes or potentially constitutes a 'threat to peace and security' within the meaning of the Charter is readily apparent in many episodes that have confronted the international community since the adoption of the Charter. In the context of humanitarian intervention, the United States relied on this argument on numerous occasions over the years, most notably in Grenada and Panama. Although some identify a gradual evolution of customary international law permitting intervention by states in the event of humanitarian catastrophe, the Charter's text will undoubtedly be compromised in that event. Against this background, while the removal of, for example, the Syrian regime might be noble and ethical its legality will however be uncertain.
THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON THE USE OF FORCE
Article 51 of the UN Charter which confers on individual states an 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence' and Security Council authorised enforcement actions under Chapter VII constitute the only exceptions to Article 2(4) which prohibits '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'. The Security Council is accorded primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and pursuant to Article 34 may investigate any dispute which might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Council may take any action including the use of armed force 'as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security'. A determination of a threat to peace or breach of the peace made by the Security Council in response to the situations in for example, Syria or Sudan, will serve as a legitimate trigger for Chapter VII enforcement action circumventing the domestic jurisdiction clause of Article 2(7). Nevertheless, a more fundamental difficulty however will be establishing the existence of elements such as humanitarian crises or a disruption to democracy in Syria which have served as a precursor to intervention in the past, most notably in Somalia and Haiti.
THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’
i. Humanitarian intervention brought about by human rights abuses
It is increasingly being accepted that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security (envisaged as collective response to armed attack), to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide and other gross violations of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric. Humanitarian intervention was recognised in the Council's resolution which expressed demand for urgent response by the international community, determining that the magnitude of the humanitarian crises in Rwanda constituted a threat to international peace and security in the region. The Council authorised 'operations aimed at protecting displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk, using 'all necessary means to achieve these humanitarian objectives'. Humanitarianism was reiterated in the text of Security Council resolution 688(1991) which expressed grave concern over 'the repression of Iraqi citizens leading to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross border incursions, which threaten international peace in the region', demanding Iraq to end the repression immediately. If the line of authority espoused in Iraq and Rwanda is to be followed, the displacement of a large amount of the population, who have fled Syria following the political crisis in the country, certainly presents an international crisis and consequently constitutes a 'breach of peace' which falls within the ambit of Article 39, thus requiring enforcement.
TO BE CONTINUED
No comments:
Post a Comment