Introduction to
International Relations
Human Rights and
Humanitarian Intervention
Jaechun Kim
The fundamental problem of Humanitarian
Intervention in IR:
Human Rights   Sovereign Rights
Restrictionists vs. Counter-restrictionists
Pluralist international society theory vs. Solidarist
international society theory
These two different schools present different
solutions to the dilemma…
Restrictionists
intervention violates the cardinal norm of international
relation – principle of sovereignty…
Protecting sovereignty is more important..
invoke Article 2 of UN Charter (principle of nonintervention)
Counter-restrictionists
we should give priority to protection of HR…
there is legal right of unilateral and collective
humanitarian intervention…
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and
many other resolutions…
Major rationales for approving humanitarian
intervention (Case of solidarist theory of intl
society; case of counter-restrictionists)
Growing consensus on common humanity
Is this view right, though?
Protection of H R is becoming a major concern
of intl community…unilateralism is OK when
intervening…
In some cases, not intervening is simply morally
wrong…
The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) – a United Nations
initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging norm, or
set of principles, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a right,
but a responsibility.
R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it
places under the generic umbrella term of, Mass Atrocity Crimes.
The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars".
A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass
atrocities;
The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to
fulfill its primary responsibility;
If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and
peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the
responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as
economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law.
Rationales for disapproving HI
Primary motive of HI hardly is humanitarian (realist
argument…)
There is good reason to be suspicious about the
motives…
States should not risk the lives of their soldiers on
humanitarian grounds… (morality can’t be the
foundation for states’ foreign policy)…
Both interventionism and non-interventionism has thin
foundation in realism..
Problem of abuse
Ligitimization of HI will lead to the abuse of
intervention… because of the subjective nature of
human rights… HI will be the tools of intervention for
strong countries…
Selectivity in response…
States apply HI selectively…
Northern Iraq (1993), KOSOVO, Somalia (1992),
North Korea; Rwanda, East Timor, Sudan…
Myanmar, maybe Pakistan…
No consensus on what principles should govern a
doctrine of HI..
Rule-consequentialism: intl society will be better off if
we can uphold the principle of sovereignty instead of
allowing HI in the absence of consensus.
Two cases of intervention during the Cold
War
Tanzania’s intervention (?) in Idi Amin’ Uganda
Vietnamese intervention (?) in Pol Pot’s Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge)
They all claimed that they were acting in selfdefense. Why?
Good intentions don’t necessarily result in
good results….
Humanitarian
outcomes
Humanitarian Motives
and outcomes:
Non-humanitarian Motives:
Humanitarian outcomes:
The international intervention in
Northern Iraq in April 1991
Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in
December 1978 and Tanzania’s
intervention in Uganda 1979
Humanitarian
motivation
Non-humanitarian
motivation
Humanitarian Motives,
non-humanitarian
outcomes:
The UN intervention in Somalia
from May 1993 to February 1995
Non-humanitarian
Motives and outcomes:
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan
in 1979
Non-humanitarian
outcomes
Big question here is then: When (on
what occasions) can intervention
justified?
Which means justify the cause? Does it
always have to be military intervention?
What about non-forcible humanitarian
intervention?
Case Study: Intervention in KOSOVO
Issue at stake – Serbia’s Milosevic regime killing
Kosovo Albanians…
US-led NATO intervention (1999)
Objectives of intervention?
National Interests? – Strengthening of NATO to contain Russia;
Prevention of refugee problem..
Humanitarian concern? Milosevic killed 20,000 Bosnians
already…
Little bit of both!!
Criticisms and Rebuttals
UN Security Council did not sanction the aerial
bombing – Violation of Intl Law!!  Russia
and China
 UN SC resolution was not feasible due to
objection from Russia and China; Unilateral
action was inevitable…
Aerial bombing was in violation of principle of
sovereignty… Intl law stipulates that use of
force can be justified only in case of self
defense!
 We don’t have to observe sovereign rights
of repressive regime…
Was it successful?
Maybe too little and too late…or too
much and too soon?
Aerial bombing was not the right means
of intervention…
The role of public opinion
Kosovo, Somalia, Northern Iraq…
East Timor
History
West Timor was colonized by Dutch and East Timor was
colonized by Portuguese
West Timor became a part of Indonesia after WWII, and
in 1974 Portuguese gave up East Timor. Then East Timor
declared independence.
Indonesia forcibly took over East Timor
Indonesian rule in East Timor was often marked by
extreme violence and brutality; estimates of the number
of East Timorese who died during the occupation vary
from 60,000 to 200,000
East Timor finally became an independent state in
1999…
Selectivity issue here…the US hands-off approach…
Darfur Crisis
• Ethnic clash
•
•
Non-Arabs or black people
vs. Arabs
• Competition for resources (farmers vs. herdsmen)
• Special treatment given by the gov. to Arab tribes
• Rebellion against the gov.
• Gov. retaliated…
• Janjaweeds!
• Independent South Sudan
Humanitarian intervention in North Korea?
Is there humanitarian crisis in North Korea?
What are the intentions of the US and the West?
Security interests of the US (during the Bush administration –
Regime change in North Korea?
Genuine humanitarian purpose?
What are the proper means to deal with the situation?
Double standard of the West
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
East Timor…
Sudan…
Non-forcible humanitarian intervention?
Walzer – military intervention acts as
short-term palliative… should pay close
attention to the underlying causes of the
human rights problems…
What justify humanitarian intervention?
When there are two distinct peoples and one
side try to crush the other…
When genocide is taking place…
When people actually want to be rescued…
When rescue will reliably halt the suffering…
And the intervention must be proportional to
the sufferings endured…