Title: A Conflict of Rights: What Circumstances Justify Military Intervention in Humanitarian Crises?
Abstract: Abstract : The use of deadly force in order to save lives raises many issues. For example, one immediately wonders if more innocent lives will be lost by military action than will be saved; on the other hand, one could also ask if inaction in the face of genocide or ethnic cleansing can be justified. Another issue involves the threshold for intervention: what abuses, on what scale, should trigger armed action? In addition, one must consider the morality and practicality of states interfering in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states. Over the years, the international community has developed a series of norms and doctrines that address the issues raised by humanitarian intervention. The legal framework currently places serious restrictions on any use of force, including force used in the name of human rights. The presumption is in favour of the sovereignty of the state, and any intervention must be justified as an exception. However, there is evidence that the international consensus is becoming more accommodating of military action in cases of gross violation of human rights. It cannot yet be said that the presumption has moved in favour of human rights over state sovereignty, but the primacy of sovereignty and the doctrine of nonintervention seem to have been weakened. This paper will examine that trend, and will be divided into four sections. In the first, the development of the state system will be described. This section will explain how the idea of state sovereignty developed and became the centerpiece of the international system, yet the corollary norm of nonintervention became secondary to other interests.
Publication Year: 2002
Publication Date: 2002-06-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot