In his work The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century, Michael Mandelbaum asserts that the United State’s “post-Cold War interventions were, on the whole, noble but half-hearted; they were half-hearted because they were noble”. Political leaders need to be made aware of the manner in which they become involved in international events, for reinforcing actions with fundamental idealism will undermine even the noblest intentions.
When it comes to humanitarian intervention, there remain certain exceptions in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
for a nation-state to intervene in another country’s territorial borders; both written – “authorization by the Security Council and self-defense” (Chapter VII, Article 42) – and unwritten – “to promote and restore democracy…[and] on humanitarian grounds in the event of heinous abuses”. It is the unwritten exception for the use of force on humanitarian grounds that can be applied to and defended by Article 2(4), due to the word “against” in the article’s verbiage. Intervening in a nation-state’s internal conflict on humanitarian grounds is not “a use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of [a] state”, but a means to protect a nation’s borders and institutions by defending a population’s existence.
In brief, defending humanitarian intervention relies upon the following logic: without the people and their acceptance and protection of the country’s institutions, the state would no longer have a viable government, which would undermine its political independence. Moreover, without a central authority, the country would be unable to protect its territorial integrity. In thus the failure to act would undermine the United Nations’ charters defense to retain a country’s territorial integrity. The concept can be expanded from this by stating that humanitarian interventions are utilized to protect a civilian population’s right to life.
The primary international documents that defend an individual’s right to life are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While the UDHR’s Article 3 more directly promotes “the right to life, liberty and security of person”, the preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the United Nations Charter”, recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The international community lacks a general consensus defining the basic provisions underlying the concept of a right to life; however, when the term “right to life” is deconstructed it means nothing more then the right to exist.
Under this guise, the international community, when intervening in an internal conflict, must focus on whether the environment in which the nation’s inhabitants live promotes the sustainability of life by protecting individuals from the humanitarian atrocities outlined in the R2P.
It is important to remember when reading these international documents and attempting to comprehend the debates surrounding them that it is difficult to find an instance in which certain aspects of elevated idealism, as stated above, fail to be followed by a hastened resort to violence. The premise behind the use of force – the manner in which force is justified – as defended by the R2P as well as other international documents may have embodied the noblest of pursuits, though it is imperative to look past the rhetoric and examine the actions implemented on the world stage.
In the case of the United States, Walter LaFerber accurately described, in his work “Inevitable Revolutions: the United States and Central America”, the United States’ role in the international system is one of a “Wilson corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”, in which he stated “that only American oil interests receive concessions”, in regards to the reach of national power.
The ‘humanitarian intervention’ into Libya by the Western states reinforces this concept. If the international community was truly concerned about humanity, they would have placed more focus on the situations in Sudan, Somalia, Congo, or the Ivory Coast; all nations have natural resource potential, but their importance in the global oil markets are not as important as the exports from Libya. Lastly, if the West was concerned for the health and safety of the Libyan people; why have they failed to act against the individuals that have been in power, in Libya, for the past 40 years?
The international community’s desire to develop and implement a contemporary security framework based upon humanitarian intervention is promoted by the liberal/democratic peace theory. The theory states that international peace and human rights can only be advanced through the frameworks established by cosmopolitanism, a concept developed in the 1990s, and that peaceful, democratic state must become the purveyors for defining a common humanity. The concept is that humanity needs to band together to fight against atrocities, because what occurs in one part of the world affects the rest. Liberal peace theory ushered forth the fundamental philosophy that it is the duty of the state to respond against all aggressive action that could lead to the destruction of human life as well as the destabilization of the international system. It was from the general terms established by the ICISS that the doctrine of R2P doctrine was developed, for this philosophy was utilized to clarify the position of the international community when confronted with the predicament of international humanitarian intervention versus national sovereignty. The ICISS had found that nation-states had the moral justification to take action against states that are unwilling to protect their own people.
The problem with cosmopolitanism or liberal peace theory is that though the ideals are attractive to numerous individuals their real-world applicability remains highly suspect. The challenges faced by the framework are the juxtaposition of regionalized political authority with worldwide economic expansionism. The effects of these concepts are currently being witnessed to in the Middle East and North Africa. Over time, many countries have been forced to open their domestic economies to international factors, which were something that the leaders were willing to do, for financial gain, but the population was completely unprepared. This movement left the workers of the country vulnerable to international influences and undermined their confidence in their future stability, while, simultaneously, the ruling classes continued to widen the gap between the rich and poor. Instability increases as developing nations are forced to compete with one another for the injection of foreign capital, which tends to occur by reducing the taxes placed on foreign businesses. The reduction in taxes hinders the countries capacity to develop better infrastructure, maintain social cohesion, and broaden their educational services.
Cosmopolitanism’s belief that it has become the ‘third way’ – in reference to the long-standing fight between globalization and nationalism – for the global community has found limited support, when analyzing the actions taken by newly formed countries. The philosophy perceives sovereignty as partial or conditional; it is important to note that it is not sovereignty but more along the lines of sovereign equality that is under assault. A concept that can be withdrawn by the powers that be if the actions of the weaker state fail to adhere to the requirements lay before them by the leaders of liberal governments.
For many countries in the developing world, the push by the global North for international justice represents nothing more than a return to the Westphalian system. In response, many newly established countries are becoming ethno-republics – a country like Sarajevo or what South Sudan will become – a country for a very particular group of individuals willing to lock out ethnically or culturally different individuals for fear of conflict. Finding a unifying characteristic will provide the nation the opportunity to structure its policies in the same light as the regionally or internationally stronger powers, thus ensuring that they will not have to suffer under external claims placed against them.
The dynamics of the international system have changed dramatically due to the increasing outbreak in intrastate conflict and the focus on the protection of a nation’s sovereignty. The R2P was developed to focus on finding a way to avoid state failure, rather than attempting to focus world attention solely on the dangers posed by failed states. The policies of preventive intervention, developed and implemented by the R2P, attempts to work within and further define the laws accepted throughout the international system; however, certain actions must be taken prior to the worlds successfully promoting humanitarian intervention as an effective measure against violence against citizens. There must be a movement for worldwide justice and legitimacy which centers on promoting the rule of law in place of war and furthering inter-state, inter-cultural understanding.
Success is dependent upon the international community’s dedication to the rule of law and not the prosecution of war; condemnation of any and all human rights violations, even in their own countries; promotion of peace accords; and acknowledgement that ethnical and justice issues must be handled by the public realm and should be left in the hands of the private sector.
Social justice issues must become the central concern for public administrations and international businesses need to reframe their interests and activities in the world.
One always has the option to choose to manifest selective faith in national and international leadership in that they will always have the civilian’s best interests at heart and humanitarian intervention mean exactly as world leaders say; to this author it reinforces Hans Morgenthau’s statement of a “conformist subservience to power”.