General
remarks
This question is concerned with one aspect of the law relating to the
legality of the international use of force. It focuses upon the unresolved
dilemma of humanitarian intervention.
legality of the international use of force. It focuses upon the unresolved
dilemma of humanitarian intervention.
Law cases, reports and other references
the examiners would expect you to use the appropriate reading, which is based
around Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
the examiners would expect you to use the appropriate reading, which is based
around Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Common errors
Many
answers failed to observe the implications of the question, namely that a
strict reading of the UN Charter seems to leave no possibility of international
lawful intervention, save with the approval of the Security Council.
answers failed to observe the implications of the question, namely that a
strict reading of the UN Charter seems to leave no possibility of international
lawful intervention, save with the approval of the Security Council.
A good
answer to this question would…
answer to this question would…
or might, have been expected to begin with a
discussion as to when the use of force is permitted in international law, and
in particular alluding to the UN Charter, which purports to proscribe the use
of force except where it has been authorised under Chapter VII of the Charter
by the Security Council or where, under Article 51, the use of force is an
exercise in self-defence. It would have been appropriate to have observed that
a significant number of states (and, in particular, China) see no reason for
any modification of this position. Many such states are apprehensive that
unless this remains the legal position, such justifications as ‘humanitarian
intervention’ will merely be a cover for other ulterior motives. (An example of
where this has been asserted concerns Venezuela but it is merely the latest of
many.)Thus the position taken by such states is that of the proposition in the
question.
discussion as to when the use of force is permitted in international law, and
in particular alluding to the UN Charter, which purports to proscribe the use
of force except where it has been authorised under Chapter VII of the Charter
by the Security Council or where, under Article 51, the use of force is an
exercise in self-defence. It would have been appropriate to have observed that
a significant number of states (and, in particular, China) see no reason for
any modification of this position. Many such states are apprehensive that
unless this remains the legal position, such justifications as ‘humanitarian
intervention’ will merely be a cover for other ulterior motives. (An example of
where this has been asserted concerns Venezuela but it is merely the latest of
many.)Thus the position taken by such states is that of the proposition in the
question.
Other states, however, have attempted to argue that, in situations
where egregious human rights abuses are occurring and the state in which this
is happening is unable or unwilling to ameliorate the abuses, then the
international community must have the power to act even in the absence of
Security Council authorisation.
where egregious human rights abuses are occurring and the state in which this
is happening is unable or unwilling to ameliorate the abuses, then the
international community must have the power to act even in the absence of
Security Council authorisation.
The dilemma could/should be discussed by
referring to examples such as Rwanda, Kosovo and Myanmar.
referring to examples such as Rwanda, Kosovo and Myanmar.
It is probable that
many candidates will think that this question requires an in-depth discussion
of the doctrine that purported to replace any doctrine of humanitarian
intervention, namely that of ‘Responsibility to Protect’. This is certainly
relevant, although given that the use of force continues to require SC authorisation,
its significance may be less than asserted.
many candidates will think that this question requires an in-depth discussion
of the doctrine that purported to replace any doctrine of humanitarian
intervention, namely that of ‘Responsibility to Protect’. This is certainly
relevant, although given that the use of force continues to require SC authorisation,
its significance may be less than asserted.
Finally, a very good answer might
have concluded by considering the views of those who argue that, while the
international law will not change, in cases of appalling human rights abuses,
concerned states should intervene and then defend their actions in the UN,
hopefully avoiding condemnation.
have concluded by considering the views of those who argue that, while the
international law will not change, in cases of appalling human rights abuses,
concerned states should intervene and then defend their actions in the UN,
hopefully avoiding condemnation.
It would also have been relevant to observe
that only a minority of states will ever be of sufficient power (and altruism)
to intervene in forceful and constructive ways.
that only a minority of states will ever be of sufficient power (and altruism)
to intervene in forceful and constructive ways.
[Poor answers to this question…
simply provided a discussion limited either to the rules relating to the use of
force in international law, or provided an extended (but not critical) outline
of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’.]
simply provided a discussion limited either to the rules relating to the use of
force in international law, or provided an extended (but not critical) outline
of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’.]
I hope this helps.
I expect a structed essay with a clear introduction and a subjective opinion about concept that should be carried out throughout the breadth of the answer.