Global Ethics Corner: Ethics and Humanitarian Intervention

Nov 26, 2010

The UN Charter states that human rights is the responsibility of international society. It also prohibits forceful interference against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state. Which takes precedence in humanitarian crises, sovereignty or human rights?

Is it legitimate to intervene in another state's internal affairs?

Do gross violations of human rights justify armed intervention to stop atrocities?

According to the UN Charter, protection of human rights is the responsibility of international society. Hence, humanitarian interventions are foreign military actions which prevent or halt mass murder and other severe violations of human rights.

In contrast, the Charter also prohibits forceful interference against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state. The Charter rests on the principle of sovereignty.

Here the international community faces a legal and moral dilemma. Which takes precedence in humanitarian crises, sovereignty or human rights?

For skeptics, sovereignty is the key to international order, and each state holds the legitimate right to use military force domestically. They argue that hegemonic powers might exploit an ability to disregard sovereignty. Not-so-humanitarian, i.e. imperial, interventions could be justified on human rights grounds, using human rights as a foreign policy tool promoting national goals. (The Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq are possible examples.)

Supporters of humanitarian intervention embrace the idea that sovereignty is conditional based on states actually protecting their citizens, on human rights. Smith writes, a state "which violates the integrity of its subjects forfeits its moral claim to full sovereignty." Similarly, former UN Secretary General Annan argued that "no legal principle—not even sovereignty—can shield crimes against humanity."

What do you think? Should the principle of sovereignty be overridden in humanitarian crises? If so, what criteria should be used and who should intervene? Does the UN Security Council have enough legitimacy to make these calls?

By Omer Zarpli

For more information see:

Michael J. Smith, "Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of Ethical Issues," Ethics and International Affairs, Volume 12, 1998

Kofi Annan, "We the Peoples: The Role of United Nations in the 21st Century."

Photo Credits in order of Appearance:

Olivier Duquesne
Craig J. Shell/ U.S. Marine Corps
Isriya Paireepairit
Andrew W. McGalliard
Tommy Avilucea
Rachael
Sean A. Terry/ U.S. Army
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jna_t-55_slovenia.jpg
Marion Doss
Mikhail Evstafiev
Michael Blackwell II/ U.S. Army
Rubén Díaz
Matthijs Gall
ILRI
Alan Chan
Pete Souza

You may also like

United Nations headquarters, New York City. CREDIT: Shutterstock.com/blurAZ.

JUN 4, 2026 Article

International Humanitarian Law under Stress, Humanitarian Lives under Fire

UN Under-Secretary-General Gilles Michaud reflects on the erosion of international humanitarian law and the urgent need to restore accountability and protection for aid workers.

MAY 29, 2026 Podcast

Democracy in Retreat

Freedom House's Yana Gorokhovskaia discusses the political and ethical stakes of two decades of global freedom decline.

Tehran, Iran. CREDIT: Shutterstock.com/Mazur Travel

MAY 27, 2026 Article

Iran Is Not Venezuela—But That’s Not the Point: The Ethics of American Tactical Power

Despite vast differences, Washington has treated Iran and Venezuela as parallel cases, writes Neda Bolourchi. What does this reveal about the ethics of American power?

Not translated

This content has not yet been translated into your language. You can request a translation by clicking the button below.

Request Translation