CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HUMANITARIAN INTEVERNTION
2.9. Applicable Concepts
2.9.2. International Law
Despite the argument by Tesón (2001), that humanitarian intervention is permissible only on the condition that it is directed towards halting human rights violation.
On the other hand, the proponents of humanitarian intervention deem the principle of non- intervention as the only curtain beyond which human rights abusers hide. According to Levy and Sznaider (2006), if state sovereignty is absolute and intervention is a serious attack on it, human rights can never be defended by the international community. The international community of states have the responsibility to prevent and halt human right violations, which are classified under the international law and other treaties as crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is in the words of Chesterman (2004) that, it is the political will that drives the society of states to intervene and therefore sovereignty cannot be blamed for the failure of the international society to protect imperiled people. Crimes against humanity and war crimes can only be stopped if the international community intervenes and apply proportional force where it is necessary. However, in reality states only intervene when they feel obliged to intervene and their obligation is to a larger degree informed by their interests.
to its natives. The inclusion of human rights further depicts the mammoth anticipation for international law to uphold harmony even within countries.
Furthermore, international law could be seen as the monarch of orders which seek to manage international serenity and security. International law assumes the headship role in the territory of counter-fighting elements that seek to disturb universal serenity. There are various marvelous facets of the international law, which jurists and the general population must know. Moreover, according to Weeramantry and Buroughts (2005), qualify international law as the necessary mechanism through which war and human suffering, which subsequently qualified as gross human rights violations are ought to be obliterated. Wars have been known to have encompassed human nature since time immemorial and has given birth to human rights defilements, hence it is a necessity to obliterate it. In addition, the creation of Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) and their easy accessibility has perpetrated gross human rights violations. These weapons are available to both state agents and non-state actors who direct their usage towards genocidal intentions. It is the international law that prohibits such usage of the Weapons of Mass Destructions.
2.9.2.1. International Law on Human Rights.
The occurrence of the Second World War brought about the prominent human rights violations which the face of earth has ever witnessed (Chinkin, 1998). The end of the World War Two gave birth to the commitment and tying of human rights to the international legal system. The human rights bodies were established and were mostly concerned about conscripting of the Universal Human Rights, which was alongside coupled with Genocide Convention, which later were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Since from then, new treaties and conventions on human rights were signed and bodies that act as the watchdogs of human rights were established. The international law, according to Evans (2001), comes from the international conventions, therefore states that are signatories in those treaties and statutes are obligated to observe and accord veneration to individual rights within and across their defined borders.
Furthermore, the international law prohibits all sorts of actions that are directed towards incitement of ill-treatment of people, which among other things involve genocide, ethnic cleansing, incitement of war and arbitrary detention. The above-mentioned crimes can be committed by both state agents and non-state actors. The international law calls for the punishments of states and non-state actors who have been found to be have committed gross human rights defilements. International
institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC) and other relevant Tribunals sit in adjudication of the crimes committed during armed conflicts. Hence, the international legal framework legitimizes the intervention for humanitarian purposes in sovereign states where human rights are being violated in a gross fashion. According to Ayoob (2001), international institutions like the UN Security Council shoulders the responsibility to apply international law when the need ascends. The punishment of actions that perpetually undermine human rights is qualified as necessary under the international law, as such punishment would mean the accomplishment of the international peace and security.
2.9.2.2. International Law on Humanitarian Intervention.
The undertaking of action by individual state or organizations from those states or the international community with the primary intention of shielding population in another country from the cruelty is qualified as the humanitarian intervention (Savić, 2007). In terms of the international law the employment of force as the means of averting humanitarian danger or threat is permissible. It is under chapter VI and VII of the Charter of the United Nations, where it is articulated that the powers to maintain international security and order are vested in the UN Security Council.
However, the international law continues to guarantee the independence of states, but intervention is permissible only in circumstances where human rights are violated in a gross manner. Be that as it may, the international legal framework provides an ideal situation during which intervention is permissible. Among other things, those situations include, blatant human rights violations, genocidal actions and ethnic cleansing. It is clear on the United Nations Charter that the Security Council may decide on the measures to be employed when intervening, but those measures should not include the use of force. However, the failure of those measures in achieving desired outcomes the UN Security Council must decide to apply force.
Furthermore, the application of force should be the last resort and be decided upon by the relevant bodies. The force applied should be proportionate to the good intended and areas where civilians reside should be not the main military target. Hence, Chesterman (2001), asserted humanitarian intervention should epitomize the principles of the just war doctrine. Intervening parties are expected to do justice during the war. The manner in which combatants conduct themselves is important as it determines the success or failure of the intervention. Moreover, the weapons that are used should not be the weapons prohibited by the international law such as the biological
weapons. More importantly the principle of immunizing non-combatants should be applied all the times of intervention. As Savić (2007), posits that humanitarian intervention is meant to relieve people from the cruelty they are subjected to by their regimes or any other actor that is a non-state actor.