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

OCT 7, 2024 Video

Science Summit at UNGA79: Brain Economy Paradigm Shift for Democratic Renewal

As part of the 2024 UN Science Summit at the 79th UNGA, Joel Rosenthal discussed how democratic systems can prosper in the age of technological acceleration.

CREDIT: Abobe/hamara.

SEP 25, 2024 Article

Politico Op-Ed: Walking a Fraying Nuclear Tightrope

In a new op-ed, Carnegie Council President Joel Rosenthal argues that a recommitment to nuclear arms control is nothing short of a moral imperative.

Left to Right: Eleonore Fournier-Tombs, Ambassador Chola Milambo, Ambassador Anna Karin Eneström, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Vilas Dhar. CREDIT: Bryan Goldberg.

SEP 19, 2024 Video

Unlocking Cooperation: AI for All

On the eve of the Summit of the Future, Carnegie Council & UNU-CPR hosted a special event exploring the implications of AI for the multilateral system.

Not translated

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

Request Translation