CYIL 2012

ARMED INTERVENTION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW majority of armed conflicts, situations threatening international peace and security, relates to originally internal (non-international) conflicts. There is no doubt that the “law” or “right” of intervention was not embodied in the UN Charter, not even in case of gross violations of humanitarian law or human rights law. During the “Cold War”, it was argued by some “western” lawyers, that Art. 2 (4) would allow military intervention which is not directed against another state’s “territorial integrity or political independence”, or which is not “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. 4 In the National Security Strategy of the US of Sept. 17, 2002 it was stated: “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively….” President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address to Congress resolutely declared: “We will never seek anyone’s permission to defend the national interests of the United States.” 5 At the present time we are witnessing various attempts to justify “relaxation” of the use of force prohibition of Art. 2 (4). International law experts are deeply divided in their views on the “legality” and “legitimacy” of armed (especially humanitarian) interventions. Proponents of international interventions argue that international law and the notion of “military interventions are not “static” and that development may result from “legitimacy” to “legality”. 6 The United States has invoked the “legitimacy” doctrine already for its Lebanese (1976 – 1977) and Vietnamese interventions (1963 – 1973). On the other hand the USA supported rebels against the government in Guatemala in 1954, in Cuba in 1961, in Dominican Republic in 1965 and in Nicaragua in 1980 – 1986. There are various doctrines and practices of armed interventions. A number of justifications for military intervention since the adoption of the UN Charter have been raised: protection of human rights, establishing democratic regimes in totalitarian states (regime change), security interests (doctrine of legitimacy), responsibility to protect, response to providing safe haven to terrorists or historically the right to self-determination or protection of the spheres of influence, etc. Military interventions may be organised by individual states, groups of states (coalitions of like-minded states) or international organisations acting at their own discretion or upon authorisation by the UNSC or directly as a “UN peacekeeping force”. There is a leading opinion among international jurists which prefers the UNSC approval for military intervention. A lot of studies on the topic of military interventions have been written. 7 Many scholars have argued against legalising 4 D’Amato A., International Law: Process and Prospect , New York 1987, p. 58. 5 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 17, 2002, see http://www. whitehouse.gov/ns/nss.pdf; Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on State of the Union, Jan. 28, 2003, 39 Weekly Comp. Pres., Doc 109, Febr. 3, 2003. 6 Franck T. M., Recourse to Force, State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks , Cambridge 2004, pp. 129, 137-8.142, 178. 7 Brownlie I., Principles of Public International Law, Oxford 1963; Damrosch L. F. (ed.), Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflict ; Franck T., Recourse to Forc e, Cambridge 2004; Gray Ch., International Law and the Use of Force , Oxford 2004; Holzgrefe J. L., Keohane, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical and Political Dilemmas , Cambridge 2003; Lillich R. B. (ed.) Humanitarian

65