Right to intervene or not to be intervened:The Impact of International Humanitarian Interventions on State Sovereignty from an International Law Perspective

Abstract

Despite the clear ban stipulated in the United Nations Charter on the use of force against territorial integrity and political independence against sovereign states international interventions based on humanitarian purposes have become a common occurrence in the contemporary world. This paper examines the question of whether there is an established right in international law either to intervene or not to be intervened based on humanitarian grounds. This problem requires the examination of present-day international interventions ostensibly based on humanitarian purposes, whether to be allowed as of a right of the interveners or to be rejected as of a right of the target state subjected to such attempts. Recent developments in international law suggest the need for a reconceptualization of its traditional concepts and doctrines to better address the current issues from a legal perspective. Although non-intervention is a well-established principle, reflected in the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in the aftermath of the Cold War period the need of intervention based on humanitarian purposes emerged profoundly due to the mass atrocity crimes perpetrated by or allowed by Sovereign states against their own citizens. As a result, different viewpoints on the issue of interventions should be balanced through a legal regime though such an endeavour is lacking at present. The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) cannot be considered a rejoinder since it is more of political in character than legal. Therefore this paper emphasizes the need to develop suitable criteria and guidelines to regulate unavoidable humanitarian interventions launched to avoid or end humanitarian catastrophes and to ensure any potential abuse of such noble endeavours for achieving larger political goals by a polarized world.