Crimes of War - Educator's Guide: Humanitarian intervention

Essential Question: When is a country obliged or prohibited by international humanitarian law to intervene in a humanitarian crisis that is outside of its national boundaries?

This chapter is intended to provide basic information to foster discussion on the arguments and documents relating to humanitarian intervention. It may be helpful for teachers to reference the associated chapters from Crimes of War listed above. This learning resource may be used as part of a lesson on international humanitarian law (IHL) or as a background to a unit structured around International Relations, ideally to highlight arguments for/against intervention in intra-state conflict.

The concept of humanitarian intervention is not the same as humanitarian aid. Though closely related, intervention is when a state or group of states employs military force within another country's territory to protect civilians from atrocities and/or the consequences of a humanitarian crisis. Aid is often provided by international or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Red Cross, which attempt to bypass political affiliation and "neutrally" deliver food, shelter, and medical care to civilians. This distinction within international humanitarian law, "the leap from provisions providing for the delivery of humanitarian relief to military intervention is a long one, but not too long for those politically motivated to do so."[1] This distinction is further blurred because humanitarian intervention has no formal legal definition. The concept of such intervention can be found in tenets of international law, political science, ethics and international affairs. There are varying definitions and historical understandings of the idea.

The Danish Institute of International Affairs defines humanitarian intervention as a "coercive action by states involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its government, with or without authorization from the United Nations (UN) Security Council, for the purpose of preventing or putting to halt gross and massive violations of human rights or international humanitarian law."[2] Rieff states "that humanitarian intervention is at once an immensely powerful and a terribly imprecise idea. …Its fundamental premise is that outside powers have the right and perhaps, under certain circumstances, the duty to intervene to protect people in other countries who are being victimized, even if what is taking place is a conflict within a state".[3]

These ideas differ from classical intervention in that a state or group of states which are considering humanitarian intervention focus their reasons for intervening primarily on the effect a conflict has on civilian populations instead of their own national interests. The question of whether humanitarian intervention can ever be truly apolitical, even in cases of horrendous human rights violations, remains unanswered.

According to the UN Charter, states are only allowed to threaten or use force against another state for reasons of self-defense or when it is authorized by the Security Council as necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security" (Chapter VII). In other situations, the UN Charter recognizes the territorial integrity and political independence of all States. The notion of "international peace and security" is flexible enough to allow for a broad range of interpretations and on occasion the Security Council has invoked it as justification for actions that seem primarily humanitarian in character.

All acts of intervention that require use of force are subject to approval by the UN. However, since humanitarian crisis is not explicitly recognized in the UN Charter as a legitimate reason for intervention, members of the Security Council have sometimes been able to block proposed interventions through the use or threat of their veto. The decision to intervene for humanitarian reasons is predominantly based on public opinion and pressure exerted on intervening states, international activists, media coverage, and political consideration of Security Council members.

There have been a number of international interventions that have worn the mask of humanitarian intervention but serve a political agenda that is often not supported by the public in the intervening state. Many imperial campaigns headed by European colonial powers in the 19^th century were justified on humanitarian grounds. According to Alex De Waal, the Gatling gun, used by the British Naval Brigades during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, was seen as the agent of "philanthropic imperialism", a method of bringing civilization to the natives. Intervention to save threatened Christian minorities in Muslim lands during the decay of the Ottoman Empire was seldom questioned except in debates regarding efficiency and expense. Britain's right - or, as it was defined at the time, duty - to intervene in Sudan, first to suppress the slave trade and later to avenge the death of General Charles Gordon, was conditional on whether the British viewed circumstances as beneficial to their cause. The doctrine was discredited in the 1920s and 1930s, when the right of intervention was applied within Europe, cited by Adolf Hitler to justify the annexation of the Sudetenland.[4]

Since the end of the Cold War, humanitarian intervention has emerged in a new light. No longer limited and restrained by the ideological war between the superpowers (United States and Russia) many conflicts have been confined to national boundaries which involve a repressive government or the collapse of the state. These conditions have often resulted in gross violations of human rights. The Security Council has sometimes chosen to regard these violations of human rights to be a "threat to international security and peace" and in response has used economic sanctions or force where it deems necessary.

As the Cold War came to a close, the concept of humanitarian intervention was re-considered by Mario Bettati, Professor of International Public Law at the University of Paris, and by the French politician Bernard Kouchner. Bettati and Kouchner explained that following the Cold War, the new world order would be based on democracy, rule of law and human rights as top priorities. The need to help people in distress would mean that everyone had a duty to assist those at risk, which would override traditional legal rules, such as the principle of non-intervention. Bettati and Kouchner defined this new concept as the right of intervention.[5] The notion of responsibility to protect is also an important debate in international policy-making. Responsibility to protect refers to the idea that sovereign states have a "responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states".[6]

In addition to legal and political doctrine in support of humanitarian intervention, by the mid-1990s humanitarian relief organizations became less able to function safely in conflict zones. This re-ignited the discussion among UN bureaucrats regarding the legality and feasibility of humanitarian intervention. By the end of the decade, following the perceived failure of the international community to stop the genocide in Rwanda, politicians were promoting intervention based on claims of moral action in foreign policy. The inconsistency of the UN Security Council in deciding when humanitarian emergencies counted as a threat to "international peace and security" caused problems for those who favored a more interventionist approach. For example, in Kosovo, the Security Council was not willing to endorse the use of force by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against Serbia.

One situation where the U.N. Security Council authorized intervention for humanitarian purposes under the international peace and security formula was in Somalia.

In 1992, it was recognized that millions of Somalis were suffering as a result of widespread famine, inter-clan fighting, absence of a government authority and general lawlessness.[7] In response, the UN Security Council authorized the UN Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) that deployed military troops in Somalia under United States' central command in order to provide humanitarian relief activities. However, by 1994 troops were withdrawn based on rising violence and disturbing news footage of dead American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. One result of the U.S. intervention in Somalia was Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), issued on March 31, 1994, which committed the United States to not dispatching its forces anywhere except for reasons of the gravest national interest. It also instructed opposition to any intervention by other countries. This directive was issued one week before the Rwandan Genocide began.[8]

The international intervention in Kosovo is often mentioned as the standard example of humanitarian intervention. In 1999, several Western nations, without a Security Council resolution, led the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to war with Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Yugoslavia in order to end the campaign of repression against ethnic Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The intervention into Kosovo was conducted by air which saved financial costs as well as the lives of ground soldiers. In addition, the intervention was conducted without the full support of the Security Council. Both Russia and China opposed the intervention into Kosovo. This meant that the United States could not win a resolution with the backing of the UN. The Security Council did pass resolutions stating that what was occurring in Kosovo was a threat to peace; however, it did not authorize military force.

Following Kosovo, the debate on humanitarian intervention continued in the UN and among international lawyers and politicians. Finally, a Canadian-sponsored commission formulated an "international responsibility to protect" position for people facing massacre. The UN General Assembly adopted a version of this language at the World Summit 2005[9] giving official endorsement to the idea that the Security Council should act to prevent genocide or other atrocities taking place within an individual state, when the country’s government was "manifestly failing" to protect the population from abuse. However, it was still unresolved whether states could intervene unilaterally for humanitarian purposes if the UN was deadlocked.

There are still many questions that humanitarian intervention in the 21^st century must attempt to answer. Questions of just war, the potential abuse of principles of intervention, state sovereignty in an increasingly globalized world, and the absence of any real system of international security poses great challenges. Humanitarian intervention, despite its potential benefits, is only part of the solution.

1. Which international legal documents outline states' responsibilities with regards to humanitarian intervention? What are the benefits/limitations of the UN Charter regarding humanitarian intervention?

2. Do you think that distinctions between political and humanitarian intervention legitimate? How does each affect public support in countries proposing intervention during violent conflict?

3. Do you think that the UN Charter's rule that the Security Council can authorize military intervention when there is a "threat to international peace and security" is too broad? Why or why not? Do you think that having a broad definition makes it easier for states to intervene in the face of human rights violations? Support your answer.

4. Do you agree or disagree that human suffering alone can justify military intervention in another state's conflicts?

5. What were some of the striking features of the Kosovo campaign? How did the International Commission of Experts' comments that the intervention had been "illegal but legitimate" support the argument for humanitarian intervention?

6. How has the United States’ participation in humanitarian interventions such as the first Gulf War or Kosovo been portrayed in the U.S. media? How might this affect domestic and coalition support? How do you think the history of humanitarian intervention affects more recent conflicts like Darfur?

7. In what ways does humanitarian intervention challenge state sovereignty? Do you agree with this limitation on sovereignty? Why or why not?

8. Many scholars have stated that if "humanitarian intervention has a real future, it must be through multilateral action." Do you agree or disagree with this comment? What are your reasons?

9. What role does the UN Security Council play in determining the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions? When is it legal to violate state sovereignty?

10. Is the wealth of a country related to its ability to engage in humanitarian intervention? What implications may this have for developing nations and developed nations?

11. In his book Humanitarian Intervention: The U.N. in an Evolving World Order[10], Sean Murphy claims that, "the UN Charter is oriented towards the preservation of order, not human rights protection". Based on your understanding of the arguments for humanitarian intervention, do you agree with his observation? What do you think the UN Charter should be based on?

Assign two or three character roles from each of the humanitarian interventions described below. Ask students to research the conflicts and create responses (physical, emotional, psychological) for each of the participants in the intervention. Examples may be humanitarian aid workers on the ground, a soldier, a child affected by the conflict, a politician who did or did not support the intervention, a UN official or policymaker, or a journalist writing during or after the intervention.

A paragraph for each character can be used to spark discussion or create a panel/forum to discuss the principles of humanitarian intervention. The goal of this activity is to provide students with a deeper understanding of the complexity of decisions made before, during, and after humanitarian interventions and the variety of people and interests involved. Some potential questions to guide the activity may include: What principles should guide humanitarian intervention? How do you decide who should be assisted? What might be short and long-term goals? What is the "esponsibility to protect"[11]

1. In Zaire (now Congo) in 1994-1995, humanitarian workers relied upon local community leaders to accelerate food and medical distribution to over a million refugees from Rwanda. But this cost-conscious and relatively effective approach also strengthened the hand of the genocidaires (those responsible for the slaughter who maintained control within refugee camps).

2. In Bosnia for much of the period from 1992 to 1995, humanitarian workers often faced two options: moving endangered populations and helping to foster the despicable policy of "ethnic cleansing" or assisting people in so-called safe havens (perhaps the most dangerous spots in the Balkans) and thereby eventually making some of them "well-fed dead".

3. In Afghanistan, humanitarian workers have had to leave or to compromise with the Taliban who forbid women to work, insist that they dress in the all-enveloping chador, bar girls from education beyond elementary school, and maintain separate and inferior (or non-existent) facilities for women's health.

4. In 1992, it was recognized that Somalia was suffering from widespread famine, inter-clan fighting, absence of a government authority and general lawlessness. In response, the United Nations issued a UN Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) which deployed military troops to Somalia under United States central command in order to provide humanitarian relief activities. However, by 1994 troops were withdrawn based on rising violence and disturbing news footage of dead American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

5. The Darfur conflict is an ongoing violent conflict occurring in western Sudan. The Janjaweed (a militia group that has reportedly received extensive government support) along with other militia groups including the Sudanese Liberation Army are responsible for attacks against civilians that, according to United Nations estimates, have killed over 200,000 people. According to Minority Rights Group International (MRG) Executive Director Mark Lattimer: "This level of crisis, the killings, rape and displacement could have been foreseen and avoided ... Darfur would just not be in this situation had the U.N. systems got its act together after Rwanda: their action was too little too late."[12]

1. Divide the class into small groups. Each group will be given one of the following arguments to develop and expand upon:

(1) humanitarian intervention infringes on state sovereignty and is not the responsibility of the international community; or

(2) humanitarian intervention is the responsibility of the international community in order to prevent suffering, unnecessary deaths and to protect human rights.

2. After each group has had time to development their argument, have each group select one or two students to represent their group. The selected students will then participate in a debate in front of the rest of the class.

3. After each student has presented their group's arguments, have students write an essay defending one of the positions.

Work to educate people about the genocide in Darfur and the lack of international action by encouraging friends and family to install a "Save Darfur" banner on their website.

Convince two people to install the banner on their website and use the opportunity to inform your friends and family about the international community’s responsibility to intervene in the face of humanitarian crisis like that in Darfur.

Black Hawk Down, directed by Ridley Scott (Revolution Studios, 2001). Based on a prize-winning book, the film depicts the most infamous engagement of the Somalia occupation: a well-prepared ambush against U.S. forces, the fog of urban warfare, heroism under fire, and retaliation that inflicts collateral damage against local civilians.

Three Kings, directed by David O. Russell (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999). At the end of the Persian Gulf War, four U.S. soldiers plan to steal a secret stash of Kuwaiti gold. Instead, they find themselves getting involved with civilians being executed by Saddam Hussein and left defenseless by the U.S. military.

Clarke, Walter and Herbst, Jeffrey (Eds.) (1997). Learning from Somalia: The Lesson of Armed Humanitarian Intervention. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997

Sahnoun, Mohamed (1994). Sudan: The Missed Opportunities. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Falk, Richard (2006). "Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo". In Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Laws, and Peacebuilding (eds. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffrey W. Helsing). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

[1] Rieff, David and Dworkin, Anthony. "Humanitarian Intervention". Crimes of War. Eds. Roy Gutman, David Rieff and Anthony Dworkin. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007, p. 227-230.
[2] Danish Institute of International Affairs, www.diis.dk. Accessed June 14, 2007.
[3] Op cit.
[4] De Waal, Alex (2007). "No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention: Why We Need to Rethink How to Realize the "Responsibility to Protect' in Wartime". Harvard International Review. March 21, p. 1.
[5] Kioko, Ben (2003). "The Right of Intervention under the African Union's Constitutive Act; Non-interference to Non-Intervention". International Review of the Red Cross. Vol. 85: 807-825.
[6] International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001). The Right to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottowa: International Development Research Centre.
[7] Op cit.
[8] Op cit, de Waal, p. 3.
[9] The 2005 World Summit Outcome as reported by the U.N. General Assembly.
[10] Murphy, Sean D. (1996). Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 427.
[11] This extension activity is adapted from the Frontline Teachers Guide "Ambush in Mogadishu", which is also the source for the first three scenarios of Zaire, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Accessed July 31, 2007.
[12] Srinivasan, Sharath (2006). "Minority Rights, Early warning and conflict prevention: lessons from Darfur". Minority Rights Group International. Accessed August 1, 2007.