1.5: Justice and Human Rights
If we accept the idea that at least some human rights are universal, what obligations do states have to protect the rights of people in other countries? The responsibility to protect and the concept of humanitarian intervention are attempts to answer that question by providing a framework for when one state may need to intervene in another's domestic affairs in the name of justice and human rights.
Remember that the founding documents of modern human rights law grew out of the global response to the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II. Looking back at those events, leaders and activists began to wonder if and when it would have been possible and ethical for other countries to intervene in Germany's affairs. Since then, the United Nations and individual states have developed new ideas and arguments about how to address human rights abuses around the world.
These ideas are balanced against the concept of state sovereignty in international law and the fact that the United Nations charter says that the only time it is acceptable for one state to use force against another is in a case of self-defense, or when the Security Council has authorized the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. Most humanitarian interventions in history do not meet these thresholds.
This article introduces the responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention in international law and provides several case studies to illustrate the concepts. As you read this article, consider what criteria you think should be met to justify humanitarian intervention. Are there possible downsides or unintended consequences that could result from a humanitarian intervention? What are some examples?
This op-ed considers the responsibility to protect in the context of political considerations. The author argues that the responsibility to protect is a moral position, while interventions are sometimes decided on political issues. How does he try to reconcile these competing decision-making frameworks?
In this video, Michael Ignatieff, a member of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, gives an overview of several humanitarian interventions in the past several decades, discussing successes and failures. He also lays out the case for interpreting sovereignty – not as a right for states to do whatever they wish within their borders, but as a responsibility they have to protect their citizens from atrocities. How do you think this argument changes the framework we use to determine whether intervention is legitimate?
This video reviews the concepts presented in this section and the conflicts between humanitarian interventions and other political considerations.