Advanced

Rätt att skydda? - En analys av rättsutvecklingen rörande interventioner med humanitära bakomliggande syften

Hallén, Olof LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den 4 april 2017 utförde den syriska staten en gasattack på staden Khan Sheikhun. Attacken fick omfattande uppmärksamhet i internationell media, och den 7 april 2017 valde USA att avfyra 59 kryssningsrobotar mot flygbasen al-Shayrat, vilken var den flygbas som använts för att genomföra gasattacken. USA sade sig vilja säkerställa att flygbasen inte användes för att utföra ytterligare attacker.
Den amerikanska attacken hade inte föregåtts av godkännande från säkerhetsrådet, vilket resulterar i att den bör betraktas som stridig mot internationell rätt. Trots detta ställde sig stora delar av världssamfundet bakom attacken.
Inställningen till den amerikanska bombningen av al-Shayrat speglar en inställning som historiskt sett varit vanligt... (More)
Den 4 april 2017 utförde den syriska staten en gasattack på staden Khan Sheikhun. Attacken fick omfattande uppmärksamhet i internationell media, och den 7 april 2017 valde USA att avfyra 59 kryssningsrobotar mot flygbasen al-Shayrat, vilken var den flygbas som använts för att genomföra gasattacken. USA sade sig vilja säkerställa att flygbasen inte användes för att utföra ytterligare attacker.
Den amerikanska attacken hade inte föregåtts av godkännande från säkerhetsrådet, vilket resulterar i att den bör betraktas som stridig mot internationell rätt. Trots detta ställde sig stora delar av världssamfundet bakom attacken.
Inställningen till den amerikanska bombningen av al-Shayrat speglar en inställning som historiskt sett varit vanligt förekommande i samband med folkrättsstridigt mellanstatligt våld som företagits av humanitära skäl. Det betraktas som illegalt, men legitimt.
I det här arbetet undersöker jag utvecklingen av mellanstatligt våld med bakomliggande humanitära skäl. Jag använder de teoretiska perspektiven realism och liberalism för att analysera steget från illegala humanitära interventioner till interventioner med stöd av Responsibility to Protect. Jag analyserar också varför Responsibility to Protect inte kunnat tillämpas i samband med det syriska inbördeskriget, samt vad som kan komma att krävas för att man ska kunna genomföra lagliga humanitära interventioner i framtiden.
Analysen leder till slutsatsen att steget från doktrinen om humanitär intervention till interventioner i enlighet med Responsibility to Protect togs eftersom stater, oavsett vilket teoretiskt perspektiv som appliceras, av flera skäl har anledning att föredra det senare. Vidare konstaterar jag att tillämpningen av Responsibility to Protect dessvärre ofta kommer att hindras genom veto från säkerhetsrådets medlemmar. Slutligen konstaterar jag att förverkligandet av Responsibility to Protect i framtiden kommer att vara avhängigt på att säkerhetsrådets permanenta medlemmar bedömer att den förlust de själva drabbas av när de använder sitt veto för att blockera agerande i enlighet med Responsibility to Protect i regel är större än den potentiella vinsten de kan uppnå av att, för att främja ett egenintresse, blockera agerande i enlighet med Responsibility to Protect. En möjlighet för världens övriga stater att skapa sådana förutsättningar utgörs av möjligheten för stater att individuellt införa handelshinder och ekonomiska sanktioner mot de permanenta medlemmar som på ett otillbörligt sätt använder sitt veto emot trovärdiga resolutionsförslag rörande tillämpning av Responsibility to Protect. (Less)
Abstract
On the 4th of April 2017, the Syrian government carried out a gas attack on the Syrian city of Khan Shaykun. Three days later, on the 7th of April, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. vessel in Mediterranean Sea. The missiles where aimed at Shayrat Airbase, which had been used to carry out the gas attack on Khan Sheykun. The U.S. claimed that the attack on Shayrat Airbase was carried out in order to make sure that the airbase would not be used as a launching site for any more gas attacks.
The American attack was carried out without any prior authorization from the UN Security Council. The lack of authorization results in the American attack being in violation of international law. In spite of this, a large... (More)
On the 4th of April 2017, the Syrian government carried out a gas attack on the Syrian city of Khan Shaykun. Three days later, on the 7th of April, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. vessel in Mediterranean Sea. The missiles where aimed at Shayrat Airbase, which had been used to carry out the gas attack on Khan Sheykun. The U.S. claimed that the attack on Shayrat Airbase was carried out in order to make sure that the airbase would not be used as a launching site for any more gas attacks.
The American attack was carried out without any prior authorization from the UN Security Council. The lack of authorization results in the American attack being in violation of international law. In spite of this, a large part of the international community supported the attacks on the airbase.
Historically, the international community has shown tendencies to stand behind states and international organisations that use military force in order to reach humanitarian ends, even though the use of force has been in violation of international law. This type of military operations has often been considered to be illegal, but legitimate.
In this thesis, I investigate the development of the use of force with humanitarian motives. I use the liberal and realist theoretical perspectives to analyse the development from illegal humanitarian interventions to legal interventions supported by the principle of Responsibility to Protect. I also analyse the lack of action from the Security Council concerning the Syrian civil war. Finally, I discuss the future of Responsibility to Protect and legal humanitarian interventions.
My analysis leads me to the conclusion that the step from illegal humanitarian interventions to legal interventions supported by the principle of Responsibility to Protect was taken due to the fact that states, regardless of whether they act in accordance with the realist or the liberal perspective, have reason to prefer Responsibility to Protect over illegal humanitarian interventions. Further, I draw the conclusion that the future implementation of Responsibility to Protect often will be obstructed by permanent members of the Security Council. Finally, I conclude that Responsibility to Protect only have a chance to be implemented as originally intended if the permanent members of the Security Council finds that allowing the implementation of Responsibility to Protect serve their own individual self-interest more than not allowing the implementation of Responsibility to Protect. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hallén, Olof LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Right to protect? - An analysis of the legislative development concerning humanitarian interventions
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
folkrätt, Responsibility to Protect, humanitär intervention, internationell rätt, internationella relationer, realism, liberalism
language
Swedish
id
8941082
date added to LUP
2018-06-10 15:29:42
date last changed
2018-06-10 15:29:42
@misc{8941082,
  abstract     = {On the 4th of April 2017, the Syrian government carried out a gas attack on the Syrian city of Khan Shaykun. Three days later, on the 7th of April, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. vessel in Mediterranean Sea. The missiles where aimed at Shayrat Airbase, which had been used to carry out the gas attack on Khan Sheykun. The U.S. claimed that the attack on Shayrat Airbase was carried out in order to make sure that the airbase would not be used as a launching site for any more gas attacks.
The American attack was carried out without any prior authorization from the UN Security Council. The lack of authorization results in the American attack being in violation of international law. In spite of this, a large part of the international community supported the attacks on the airbase.
Historically, the international community has shown tendencies to stand behind states and international organisations that use military force in order to reach humanitarian ends, even though the use of force has been in violation of international law. This type of military operations has often been considered to be illegal, but legitimate.
In this thesis, I investigate the development of the use of force with humanitarian motives. I use the liberal and realist theoretical perspectives to analyse the development from illegal humanitarian interventions to legal interventions supported by the principle of Responsibility to Protect. I also analyse the lack of action from the Security Council concerning the Syrian civil war. Finally, I discuss the future of Responsibility to Protect and legal humanitarian interventions.
My analysis leads me to the conclusion that the step from illegal humanitarian interventions to legal interventions supported by the principle of Responsibility to Protect was taken due to the fact that states, regardless of whether they act in accordance with the realist or the liberal perspective, have reason to prefer Responsibility to Protect over illegal humanitarian interventions. Further, I draw the conclusion that the future implementation of Responsibility to Protect often will be obstructed by permanent members of the Security Council. Finally, I conclude that Responsibility to Protect only have a chance to be implemented as originally intended if the permanent members of the Security Council finds that allowing the implementation of Responsibility to Protect serve their own individual self-interest more than not allowing the implementation of Responsibility to Protect.},
  author       = {Hallén, Olof},
  keyword      = {folkrätt,Responsibility to Protect,humanitär intervention,internationell rätt,internationella relationer,realism,liberalism},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rätt att skydda? - En analys av rättsutvecklingen rörande interventioner med humanitära bakomliggande syften},
  year         = {2018},
}