Humanitära interventioner och legalitet
(2016) LAGF03 20162Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Article 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations states the main purpose of the United Nations, which is to maintain international peace and security. To achieve the purposes laid out in the Charter all states shall, according to article 2(4) of the Charter, refrain from 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. Furthermore, as states enjoy an extensive sovereignty, states are prohibited by international law to intervene within another state’s territory. In the Charter there are two exceptions to these prohibitions; the right to self-defense in article 51 and measures undertaken in accordance with chapter... (More)
- Article 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations states the main purpose of the United Nations, which is to maintain international peace and security. To achieve the purposes laid out in the Charter all states shall, according to article 2(4) of the Charter, refrain from 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. Furthermore, as states enjoy an extensive sovereignty, states are prohibited by international law to intervene within another state’s territory. In the Charter there are two exceptions to these prohibitions; the right to self-defense in article 51 and measures undertaken in accordance with chapter VII of the Charter.
Due to a widespread disregard of basic human rights and liberties throughout the history, the debate regarding humanitarian interventions has arisen. The Security Council are capable, in accordance with chapter VII of the Charter, to authorize state measures in regard to violations of human rights. However, political and ideological tensions within the Council sometimes makes it impossible to reach an agreement on what action is deemed to be necessary. Such a deadlock within the Security Council seems particularly deplorable in situations where civilians within a state are exposed to blatant violations of basic human rights and liberties.
The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is argued to be the solution to these problems. Proponents claims there are legal grounds on which the doctrine stands and, as such, that unilateral armed intervention based on humanitarian grounds are to be considered legal. The argument that humanitarian intervention is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations is put forward. Additionally, proponents claim that humanitarian intervention is to be regarded as an established norm of international customary law.
This essay examines the legal prerequisites for the notion of legal humanitarian intervention. The most notable arguments for such a legality are critically discussed and analyzed on the basis of the underlying purposes and principles of relevant regulations in international law and opinions in doctrine.
On the basis of this analysis, the conclusion that these arguments cannot be regarded as viable, is finally drawn. The Charter of the United Nations, and more specifically article 2(4), cannot be regarded as a legal basis on which one could establish the legality of humanitarian intervention. The interpretations of the article that are emphasized are not consistent with the fundamental principles and purposes of the Charter. Furthermore, sufficient support for such an interpretation cannot be established amongst the parties of the treaty or in practice. Lastly, humanitarian intervention is not established in international customary law. There is not sufficient state practice or opinio juris to support such a claim. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Artikel 1(1) i FN-stadgan ger uttryck för FN:s grundläggande syfte, att bevara den internationella fred- och säkerheten. Vidare föreskriver artikel 2(4) FN-stadgan att alla medlemsstater ska avhålla sig från bruk av, eller hot om, mellanstatligt våld. Dessa regleringar kompletteras av att stater enligt folkrätten tilldelas en omfattande suveränitet. Som utgångspunkt är stater således förbjudna att intervenera på andra staters territorium. Det finns dock två undantag till dessa förbud enligt FN-stadgan; rätten till självförsvar enligt artikel 51 och våld auktoriserat av FN:s säkerhetsråd.
Omfattande brott mot mänskliga fri- och rättigheter har begåtts genom historiens gång. I flertal fall begås dessa övergrepp av en stat gentemot den... (More) - Artikel 1(1) i FN-stadgan ger uttryck för FN:s grundläggande syfte, att bevara den internationella fred- och säkerheten. Vidare föreskriver artikel 2(4) FN-stadgan att alla medlemsstater ska avhålla sig från bruk av, eller hot om, mellanstatligt våld. Dessa regleringar kompletteras av att stater enligt folkrätten tilldelas en omfattande suveränitet. Som utgångspunkt är stater således förbjudna att intervenera på andra staters territorium. Det finns dock två undantag till dessa förbud enligt FN-stadgan; rätten till självförsvar enligt artikel 51 och våld auktoriserat av FN:s säkerhetsråd.
Omfattande brott mot mänskliga fri- och rättigheter har begåtts genom historiens gång. I flertal fall begås dessa övergrepp av en stat gentemot den civila befolkningen inom statens territorium. I ljuset av dessa klandervärda övergrepp har doktrinen om humanitär intervention kommit till liv. Förvisso finns det möjligheter för FN:s säkerhetsråd att auktorisera militära interventioner i fall där brott mot mänskliga fri- och rättigheter har skett. Politiska och ideologiska motsättningar i FN:s säkerhetsråd medför dock att en enighet inte alltid kan uppnås, vilket kan innebära att det internationella samfundet står utan en legal grund att med våld motverka dessa övergrepp. Förespråkare för humanitär intervention lyfter fram denna doktrin som en lösning på de problem som uppstår när ett dödläge i FN:s säkerhetsråd föreligger.
Förespråkarna hävdar att det finns en legal grund att unilateralt intervenera utifrån humanitära skäl, i de fall allvarliga brott mot mänskliga fri- och rättigheter sker. Det vidmakthålls att humanitär intervention för det första kan anses överensstämmande med våldsförbudet, för det andra att doktrinen om humanitär intervention är en etablerad norm inom internationell sedvanerätt och som sådan utgör ett undantag till de normer som reglerar bruk av mellanstatligt våld inom folkrätten.
I uppsatsen redogörs det för de rättsliga förutsättningarna för dessa argument. Vidare granskas och analyseras dessa argument utifrån ett kritiskt förhållningssätt med utgångspunkt i relevanta folkrättsliga regleringar.
Slutligen dras slutsatsen att de argument för humanitär interventions legalitet som framhålls inte är hållbara. En legal grund för humanitär intervention kan inte utläsas ur FN-stadgan då de tolkningar av artikel 2(4) FN-stadgan som framförs inte är överensstämmande med FN-stadgans primära syfte och inget utbrett stöd för denna tolkning står att finna i praxis eller bland traktatparterna. Vidare föreligger inte heller en legal grund för humanitär intervention enligt internationell sedvanerätt då varken tillräcklig statspraxis eller opinio juris går att utläsa. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8897137
- author
- Gustavsson, Marcus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt, Public international law, Use of Force in international law, Mellanstatligt bruk av våld, Humanitarian intervention, Humanitär intervention
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8897137
- date added to LUP
- 2017-02-08 11:29:44
- date last changed
- 2017-02-08 11:29:44
@misc{8897137,
abstract = {{Article 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations states the main purpose of the United Nations, which is to maintain international peace and security. To achieve the purposes laid out in the Charter all states shall, according to article 2(4) of the Charter, refrain from 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. Furthermore, as states enjoy an extensive sovereignty, states are prohibited by international law to intervene within another state’s territory. In the Charter there are two exceptions to these prohibitions; the right to self-defense in article 51 and measures undertaken in accordance with chapter VII of the Charter.
Due to a widespread disregard of basic human rights and liberties throughout the history, the debate regarding humanitarian interventions has arisen. The Security Council are capable, in accordance with chapter VII of the Charter, to authorize state measures in regard to violations of human rights. However, political and ideological tensions within the Council sometimes makes it impossible to reach an agreement on what action is deemed to be necessary. Such a deadlock within the Security Council seems particularly deplorable in situations where civilians within a state are exposed to blatant violations of basic human rights and liberties.
The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is argued to be the solution to these problems. Proponents claims there are legal grounds on which the doctrine stands and, as such, that unilateral armed intervention based on humanitarian grounds are to be considered legal. The argument that humanitarian intervention is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations is put forward. Additionally, proponents claim that humanitarian intervention is to be regarded as an established norm of international customary law.
This essay examines the legal prerequisites for the notion of legal humanitarian intervention. The most notable arguments for such a legality are critically discussed and analyzed on the basis of the underlying purposes and principles of relevant regulations in international law and opinions in doctrine.
On the basis of this analysis, the conclusion that these arguments cannot be regarded as viable, is finally drawn. The Charter of the United Nations, and more specifically article 2(4), cannot be regarded as a legal basis on which one could establish the legality of humanitarian intervention. The interpretations of the article that are emphasized are not consistent with the fundamental principles and purposes of the Charter. Furthermore, sufficient support for such an interpretation cannot be established amongst the parties of the treaty or in practice. Lastly, humanitarian intervention is not established in international customary law. There is not sufficient state practice or opinio juris to support such a claim.}},
author = {{Gustavsson, Marcus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Humanitära interventioner och legalitet}},
year = {{2016}},
}