CYIL 2012

ARMED INTERVENTION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW about the apparent willingness to expand unrestrained humanitarian interventions to remedy human rights abuses or to make every state a “democratic one”. 31 III. Humanitarian intervention The doctrine of humanitarian intervention dates back to ancient times and to the beginning of international law. Humanitarian intervention is defined as any use of armed forces by one or more states against another state (or states) to protect the life, health and liberties of the inhabitants (mainly citizens) of this invaded state (states). Humanitarian intervention is also defined as “the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, international organisation primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state from widespread deprivation of internationally recognized rights”. 32 The “classical” concept of humanitarian intervention was not limited by any prohibition of the use of armed force. It is therefore possible to distinguish the concept of humanitarian intervention before the adoption of the UN Charter, in the post-Charter period and in the present situation. According to the UN Charter any use of armed forces between states except in self-defence under Art. 51 and enforcement measures adopted by the UNSC in cases of threats to peace, are prohibited. Unilateral humanitarian intervention is mostly considered incompatible with the UN Charter, especially with Art. 2 (4). Proponents of humanitarian intervention maintain that this kind of intervention is permissible under international law and accepted practice. Morality is mentioned as the strongest justification of humanitarian intervention. The sense of legitimacy should later influence legality of intervention. Humanitarian intervention as a rule is aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights. States occasionally engage in humanitarian intervention without legal authorisation by the UNSC. Humanitarian intervention is always a rather dangerous action with possible abuse of the humanitarian justification and moral reasoning. Some authors consider humanitarian intervention as a recognised exception to the general principle of non-use of armed force, as a new legal basis for using armed force even unilaterally. Some states indicated many times that they were prepared to act without the UNSC authorisation, unilaterally or through a regional or other international organisation. Not every military intervention since the adoption of the UN Charter was justified by interveners as a humanitarian action. The states using military force relied in its justification mainly on self-defence. Some of these military actions were not condemned by the SC: Indian action in Bangladesh (1971) in support of independence from Pakistan, or Tanzanian action (1979) to overthrow Idi Amin in Uganda. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (1978) was condemned repeatedly 31 Koskenniem M., The Police in the Temple Order, Justice and the United Nations: a Didactical View, EJIL 2005, p. 343. 32 Murphy S. D. Humanitarian intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order, University of Pennsylvania. 1996, pp. 11-12.

73