Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The problem of humanitarian intervention: Developments and trends

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. P. Pringle and B. Mscteha, “UN stalls as 500,000 flee Rwanda terror”,The Independent, 1 May 1994.

  2. This is very similar to the United Nations behaviour in the “Bangladesh issue”. While thousands of innocent civilians were being subjected to brutality at the hands of West Pakistan soldiers, the United Nations did not take any meaningful action to prevent massacres and destruction which were carried out in East Pakistan. See generally, International Commission of Jurists,The Events in Pakistan-1971: A Legal Study, Geneva, 1972.

  3. Peter Pringle, “West snubs UN plea for action”,The Independent, 1 May 1994.

  4. R. Lillich, “Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights”,Iowa Law Report 53 (1967–68), 325.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., at 325.

  6. I. Brownlie, “Humanitarian Intervention”, in J.N. Moore, ed.,Law and Civil War in the Modern World, John Hopkins University Press, 1971, 667–72. In the Nicaragua case, the International Court of Justice rejected the idea that violations of human rights by the government of Nicaragua could justify the military actions undertaken by the USA against Nicaragua: ICJ Rep. 1986, para 242.

  7. S. Ogata, “Keynote Address”, in V. Gowlland and K. Samson, eds.,Problems and Prospects of Refugee Law. The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva 1992, 6.

  8. Ibid., at 6.

  9. Ibid., at 6.

  10. Professor I. Patronogic,The Evolution of the Right to Assistance, Concluding Statement, San Remo, International Institute of Humanitarian Law (1992), 4.

  11. H. Steingerger, “Sovereignty”, in Rudolf Bernhard, ed., 10Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1989), 397.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S.R. Ratner, “The Cambodia Settlement Agreements and Future”, 87/1American Journal of International Law (1993), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See UN General Ass. Res. A/Res/48/141-7 Jan. 1994. This resolution has re-affirmed the validity of the concepts, the sovereignty of States and territorial integrity, but with reservations.

  14. I. Brownlie,Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 1979, 109–10.

  15. M. Dixon and R. McCorquodale,Cases and Materials on International Law, Blackstone Press, 1991, 225.

  16. Island of Palmas Case [The Netherlands v.United States], 2 RIAA [1928], 829.

  17. Article 2 [1] states: “The organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.”

  18. Article 2 [4] states: “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.”

  19. Supra n.15 at 225.

  20. See further J.G. Starke,Introduction to International Law, Butterworths, 11th ed., 1984, 492.

  21. G. Welhengama, “Recent Development of International Law through the Second Phase of the Gulf-Crisis — An Analysis”, XII(2)The Liverpool Law Review (1991), 133.

  22. See for details,Corfu Channel case, ICJ Reports 1949 — Rep 4. Compare T. Frank, “Who killed Article 2:4?”, 64American Journal of International Law (1970), 809, where Frank argues that “the prohibition against the use of force in relations between states has been eroded beyond recognition ... It seems this is not an age when men act by principles simply because that is what gentleman ought do ...”

  23. It is discussed comprehensively in the Declaration on Principles of International law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooporation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations — Res. 2625 [xxv] 24 Oct. 1970. The principle of non-intervention is also highlighted in the Briand Kellog Pact 1928.

  24. There are some extreme opinions on this: Fonteyne wrote: “Internal oppression, however odious and violent it may be, does not affect, either directly or indirectly, external relations and does not endanger the existence of other states.” See J.P.L. Fonteyne, “The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current Validity under the UN Charter”, 4California Western International Law Journal (1974), 215.

  25. This principle is enunciated in a number of other international instruments, including the 1945 Pact of the League of Arab States, the 1948 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement and the 1947 Inter American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. SeePeaceful Settlement of Disputes between States, UN publication, New York, 1992, 4–5.

  26. M.N. Shaw,International Law, Grotius Publications, 2nd ed., 1986, 568.

  27. Supra. n.20 at chapter 18.

  28. Supra n. 15 at 494–5.

  29. Lillich,supra n.4. See also R. Lillich,Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations, University of Virginia Press, 1973. P. Thornberry,International Law and the Rights of Minorities, Clarendon Press, 1991, 36, noted: “Generally, ... the loudest advocates of humanitarian intervention are to be found in the USA ...”

  30. R. D' Amato, “The Panama invasion was a lawful response to tyranny”, 84/2American Journal of International Law (1990), 519.

  31. NATO's bombing on the Serb positions in Bosnia-Herzegovina may strengthen arguments similar to that of D'Amato.

  32. The Panama invasion was condemned by the OAS Res. CP/Res.534 [800189] 22 Dec. 1989. The UN General Assembly criticised the US intervention of Panama by an overwhelming majority and used strong terms such as “a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states”: see the Gen.Ass. Res. 44/240, 29 Dec. 1989.

  33. Supra n.30 at 519. The Grenada invasion by the US was criticised by the UN Gen. Ass. Res. 38/7, 2 No. 1989.

  34. Supra n 29 at 37.

  35. See for an extremely cautious view, V.P. Nanda, “Validity of the United States Intervention in Panama under Intentional Law”, 84/2American Journal of International Law (1990), 494–503, and F. Patel, “UN police action in lieu of war”, 85/1American Journal of International Law (January, 1991), 63.

    Google Scholar 

  36. International Legal Materials, Vol.xxxi, No.4 (July, 1992), 959, and see UN Doc. S/24111, 17 June 1992 and A/47/277, S/24111, 17 June 1992.

  37. Human Rights and Humanitarian Assistance, United Nations, Geneva, 1993, 37.

  38. D. Palister, “When food relief comes out of the barrel of a gun”,The Guardian, 7 May 1994.

  39. Supra n.37 at 37.

  40. J. Hathaway, “Reconceiving Refugee Law as Human Rights Protection”, in V. Gowlland and K. Samson, eds.,Problems and Prospects of Refugee Law, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1992, 9.

  41. C. Greenwood, “Is there a right of humanitarian intervention?”,World Today (February 1993), 36.

  42. This is clearly a lower level of support than that for any of the resolutions on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It was, moreover, a milder resolution than those relating to Kuwait. Above all, Res. 688 contained no provision regarding the enforcement of the Resolution either by the UN or by individual member states.

  43. At the beginning, the Iraq government was strongly opposed the idea of the creation of a “safe haven” in Iraq territory. Iraq's ambassador, Abdul Amir Ali Ambari protested, stating: “the intervention of allied forces was a wild idea, and it was not practical.” Iraq has lodged a complaint to the Security Council:The Guardian, 9 April 1991.

  44. Security Council Resolution 827 [1993], 25 May 1993.

  45. Supra n.38 at 16.

  46. Ratner,supra n.12 at 23, and also see M. Reisman, “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law”, 84American Journal of International Law (1990), 866.

    Google Scholar 

  47. E. Schwelb, “The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter”, 66American Journal of International Law (1972), 341.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Gen.Ass. Res.96 [i] 11 Dec.1946; see also International Legal Materials, Vol.xxxii 11, 3 May 1993 at 900 onBosnia v.Yugoslavia and Montenegro, ICJ.

  49. International Legal Materials 32, 1993, 1170.

  50. Gen. Ass. Res.A/Res/48/141 June 1994.

  51. Even the Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali has recently criticised some powerful nations for not taking steps to send in military personals to Rwanda to stop killing and prevent violation of human rights.

  52. Ghanian representative to the UN, Akwwei said during the debate in the General Assembly on the invasion of East Pakistan by the Indian army that intervention in another states affairs even on humanitarian grounds should not be tolerated. He warned: “one opens a Pandora's box ... no continent can suffer more than Africa where such a principle [of intervention] is thwarted”: UN Doc. A/PV, 2002, DC.7, 1971, 31.

  53. Supra n.38 at 16.

  54. Ibid., at 16.

  55. Ibid., at 16.

  56. Ibid., Larry Hollingsworth's comments.

  57. Supra n.40 at 9.

  58. See details, Tom J. Fraser, “Editorial Comments”, 85/1American Journal of International Law (1991), 121.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Branch in Bialystock, Warsaw University, UK

    Bogdan Wierzbicki (Professor of International Law and Head of the International Law Department)

  2. The School of Law, Social Work and Social Policy, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

    Gnanapala Welhengama BA, LLB [Sri Lanka], LLM [Lond] (Research Fellow in Law, and Lecturer in International Law of Human Rights)

Authors
  1. Bogdan Wierzbicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gnanapala Welhengama BA, LLB [Sri Lanka], LLM [Lond]
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wierzbicki, B., Welhengama, G. The problem of humanitarian intervention: Developments and trends. Liverpool Law Rev 16, 151–165 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079811

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079811

Keywords

Search

Navigation