Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Humanitarian interventions without Security Council authorization - A third exception to the prohibition on the use of force?

Forfang Righard, Ludvig LU (2022) LAGF03 20222
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
År 1994 såg det internationella samfundet passivt på medan uppskattnings-vis 800 000 människor förlorade sina liv i ett folkmord i Rwanda. Fem år senare inledde NATO en militär intervention i Kosovo med argumentet att det rörde sig om en "humanitär intervention". I båda fallen var säkerhetsrå-det oförmöget eller ovilligt att agera, trots att det var tänkt att agera som beskyddare av världsfreden och säkerheten. Oförmågan att förhindra och snabbt avsluta folkmordet i Rwanda får ses som ett stort misslyckande, vil-ket delvis förklarar varför vissa medlemmar av det internationella samfundet inte ville upprepa samma misstag i Kosovo fem år senare.
Även om interventionen i Kosovo stöddes av många medlemmar av general-församlingen väckte den... (More)
År 1994 såg det internationella samfundet passivt på medan uppskattnings-vis 800 000 människor förlorade sina liv i ett folkmord i Rwanda. Fem år senare inledde NATO en militär intervention i Kosovo med argumentet att det rörde sig om en "humanitär intervention". I båda fallen var säkerhetsrå-det oförmöget eller ovilligt att agera, trots att det var tänkt att agera som beskyddare av världsfreden och säkerheten. Oförmågan att förhindra och snabbt avsluta folkmordet i Rwanda får ses som ett stort misslyckande, vil-ket delvis förklarar varför vissa medlemmar av det internationella samfundet inte ville upprepa samma misstag i Kosovo fem år senare.
Även om interventionen i Kosovo stöddes av många medlemmar av general-församlingen väckte den också allvarliga farhågor om dess laglighet. Kosovo var vid den tiden en autonom region inom den suveräna staten Jugoslavien och interventionen utgjorde en överträdelse av principen om non-intervention och våldsförbudet enligt FN-stadgan. Debatten om huruvida "humanitära interventioner" innebär ett tredje undantag från våldsförbudet eller inte var härmed född.
År 2001 publicerade International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) en rapport om doktrinen Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Doktrinen erkändes sedan av det internationella samfundet när den inkluderades i antagandet av World Summit Outcome 2005. Den antagna versionen av R2P var dock begränsad jämfört med förslagen i ICISS-rapporten och innehöll inget nytt vad gäller möjligheten till ett tredje undan-tag från våldsförbudet vid oförmåga att agera från säkerhetsrådets sida. Den vetenskapliga diskussionen om lagligheten av så kallade humanitära inter-ventioner har sedan dess fortsatt. I avhandlingen undersöks en ram för hu-manitära interventioner som föreslagits av Ciarán Burke, vilken sedan till-lämpas på den pågående konflikten mellan Ryssland och Ukraina.
Frågan om humanitära interventioners laglighet är tyvärr fortfarande osäker. Det internationella samfundet har dock reagerat mycket olika på överträdel-ser av våldsförbudet från fall till fall, vilket tyder på att vissa överträdelser är mer acceptabla än andra - särskilt när det gäller grova kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter. (Less)
Abstract
In 1994 the international community stood idly by while an estimated 800.000 people lost their lives in a genocide in Rwanda. Five years later, NATO launched its military intervention in Kosovo, with the argument that it was a ‘humanitarian intervention’. In both cases, the Security Council was unable or unwilling to act although it was supposed to act as the protector of world peace and security. The inability to prevent and to quickly end the genocide in Rwanda was a great failure by the international community which partially explains why some members within the international com-munity did not want to repeat the same mistake in Kosovo five years later.
While the intervention in Kosovo was supported by many members of the General... (More)
In 1994 the international community stood idly by while an estimated 800.000 people lost their lives in a genocide in Rwanda. Five years later, NATO launched its military intervention in Kosovo, with the argument that it was a ‘humanitarian intervention’. In both cases, the Security Council was unable or unwilling to act although it was supposed to act as the protector of world peace and security. The inability to prevent and to quickly end the genocide in Rwanda was a great failure by the international community which partially explains why some members within the international com-munity did not want to repeat the same mistake in Kosovo five years later.
While the intervention in Kosovo was supported by many members of the General Assembly, it also rose some serious concerns regarding its legality. Kosovo was at the time an autonomous region within the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, and the intervention constituted a breach of the non-intervention principle as well as the prohibition on the use of force as stipu-lated in the Charter of the United Nations. The debate on whether ‘humani-tarian interventions’ implies a third exception to the prohibition on the use of force or not was truly born.
In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report on the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The doctrine was then acknowledged by the international community when it was included in the adoption of the World Summit Outcome of 2005. The adopted version of R2P was, however, limited compared to the suggestions of the ICISS report. It did not provide anything new concerning the possibility of a third exception to the prohibition on the use of force in the case of inability to act from the Security Council. The scholarly discus-sion regarding the legality of so-called humanitarian interventions have since then continued. The thesis examines the arguments regarding legality and investigates a framework on humanitarian interventions suggested by Ciarán Burke and applies it to the on-going conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The question on the legality of humanitarian interventions remains, unfortu-nately, uncertain. The international community have however responded very differently to breaches of the prohibition on the use of force from case to case, suggesting some breaches are more acceptable than others – certain-ly in the case of gross human rights violations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Forfang Righard, Ludvig LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20222
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Public international law, Humanitarian intervention, Responsibility to Protect
language
English
id
9104632
date added to LUP
2023-02-03 16:09:40
date last changed
2023-02-03 16:09:40
@misc{9104632,
  abstract     = {{In 1994 the international community stood idly by while an estimated 800.000 people lost their lives in a genocide in Rwanda. Five years later, NATO launched its military intervention in Kosovo, with the argument that it was a ‘humanitarian intervention’. In both cases, the Security Council was unable or unwilling to act although it was supposed to act as the protector of world peace and security. The inability to prevent and to quickly end the genocide in Rwanda was a great failure by the international community which partially explains why some members within the international com-munity did not want to repeat the same mistake in Kosovo five years later. 
While the intervention in Kosovo was supported by many members of the General Assembly, it also rose some serious concerns regarding its legality. Kosovo was at the time an autonomous region within the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, and the intervention constituted a breach of the non-intervention principle as well as the prohibition on the use of force as stipu-lated in the Charter of the United Nations. The debate on whether ‘humani-tarian interventions’ implies a third exception to the prohibition on the use of force or not was truly born. 
In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report on the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The doctrine was then acknowledged by the international community when it was included in the adoption of the World Summit Outcome of 2005. The adopted version of R2P was, however, limited compared to the suggestions of the ICISS report. It did not provide anything new concerning the possibility of a third exception to the prohibition on the use of force in the case of inability to act from the Security Council. The scholarly discus-sion regarding the legality of so-called humanitarian interventions have since then continued. The thesis examines the arguments regarding legality and investigates a framework on humanitarian interventions suggested by Ciarán Burke and applies it to the on-going conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 
The question on the legality of humanitarian interventions remains, unfortu-nately, uncertain. The international community have however responded very differently to breaches of the prohibition on the use of force from case to case, suggesting some breaches are more acceptable than others – certain-ly in the case of gross human rights violations.}},
  author       = {{Forfang Righard, Ludvig}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Humanitarian interventions without Security Council authorization - A third exception to the prohibition on the use of force?}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}