Running Head:Humanitarian Intervention and Illegal Use of Force

What is different between Humanitarian Intervention and Illegal use of Force?



Table Of Contents

Table Of Contents2

Chapter 13

Introduction3

History of United Nation4

Chapter 27

The definition of Humanitarian Intervention7

The Debate Surrounding Humanitarian Intervention7

The definition of the Use of Force8

NATO and The Use of Force9

The implications of Kosovo for international human rights law and use of force12

U.N. CHARTER LAW AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW13

Chapter 315

What is the different between Humanitarian Intervention15

Unilateral or Unauthorised Humanitarian Intervention16

When should Humanitarian Intervention be used?18

Is there an Emerging Legal Right of Unauthorised Intervention?18

International Relations Theory and Humanitarian Intervention21

Points for Discussion29

Unauthorised Humanitarian Intervention35

Conditions for the Conduct of Legitimate Intervention38

Chapter 443

The cases43

NATO's intervention over Kosovo in 199943

The US-led invasion in Iraq46

The Transitional Process:48

Phases of Transition50

Chapter 556

Conclusion56

Chapter 1

Introduction

It is estimated that civilian casualties now constitute ninety per cent of the victims of armed conflict (Weiss 1999, p. 1). The civil wars which are raging in many parts of the globe are mainly the result of intra-state conflict and/or ethnic violence and are often characterised by the collapse of state institutions and the breakdown of law and order (UN 1995; Shawcross 2000, p. 28).1 In these wars, which former United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, describes as a "new breed" of civil war (UN 1995, note 2), civilians have become the main targets and combatants employ "starvation, slaughter, and various civilian and military technologies to expel or kill civilians, including 'demonstration killings and maimings'"(Meron 2000, p. 276).

These wars have often created and perpetuated devastating humanitarian crises. The international community has, on occasion, responded to some of these crises for a variety of reasons, such as increased public pressure on governments to address human suffering, the potentially destabilising effect of transborder refugee flows, or other political and practical imperatives. States have acted both unilaterally and within the United Nations system to address these crises and such action has included the provision of humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and the use of force to provide such assistance or to prevent or stop gross and widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 'humanitarian war' in Kosovo in 1999 has once again brought to the fore the longstanding legal, political, and moral debate surrounding the doctrine of humanitarian intervention3 and in particular the right of states to intervene militarily in another state, without Security Council authorisation, in order to prevent gross violations of fundamental human rights and international humanitarian law.

This paper reviews a selection of international law and international relations literature on humanitarian intervention and in particular on NATO's intervention in Kosovo. It is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. Rather, its purpose is to provide an overview of some of the important issues surrounding unauthorised humanitarian intervention with a view to facilitating a discussion of policy options for the Canadian government. It addresses the following questions: Is there a legal or moral right or obligation on the part of states to respond to situations of gross violations of human rights? Is there an emerging legal right or ...