Table of contentsIntroductionThe question of abusesThe fatal question of the current lack of supportConclusionIntroductionStates should be allowed to use military force to end widespread and serious rights violations of human rights in other States, regardless of whether the State consents, firstly on the grounds that human rights must take precedence over sovereignty in the interests of justice and equity and secondly, the The issue of abuse, which constitutes the second largest form of opposition, can be addressed by applying strict procedural requirements. Furthermore, although this right has no legal basis so far, it could further develop within the framework of customary international law, as there is evidence of the development of the opinio juris element, and given that the Security Council veto issue will not be resolved. Before long, more people may agree that humanitarian intervention is de lege feranda and that this right could become the third exception to the ban on the use of force. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay First, the right to humanitarian intervention without the consent of the state whose territory is crossed should exist despite its potential interference with the doctrine of sovereignty, Beyond human rights, the second greatest goal of the UN after peace must be given priority. Although state “sovereignty,” the primary form of opposition to law, is an essential doctrine of international law, affording protection against territorial invasion to the protection of human rights is equally, if not more important, especially from a utilitarian point of view given today's viridity. of human rights violations. Examples include North Korea, where political opponents are tortured and imprisoned, and Yemen, where the army carries out indiscriminate attacks against civilians. To provide “happiness” to as many people as possible, human rights must be protected, because when they are violated it creates the “reverse” pain and unhappiness, which is what utilitarianism seeks to prevent. Despite the efforts of the UN to achieve this secondary objective, by upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, applied by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and by providing aid, the The UN cannot claim to succeed. Their most obvious failure lies in peacekeeping efforts in the two violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention: the genocide in Rwanda (Akayesu) and the genocide in Srebenica, Bosnia (Radislav Krstic), which of the creation of this right a much more urgent question. The UN is the only body legally authorized to intervene forcefully in accordance with Article 2(4), which has contributed greatly to world peace, and therefore, the UN also has the responsibility to intervene when States who have consented to be bound by the charter violate it. , in accordance with the rule of law. The UN was therefore declared responsible for having allowed the deaths of 800,000 people in Rwanda, failing to have prevented or mitigated the genocide. The independent report on the Rwandan genocide cited the Security Council's lack of "political will" to allow the use of force and the "chronic lack of resources" as the main causes of the catastrophic failure. Academic Piiparina noted that the UK and US' cost-effective approach resulted in "serious shortcomings in equipment, personnel, training, intelligence and planning". The same errors of lack of weapons andof political will occurred in Srebenica, Bosnia, a year later. The lack of "consensus" in the Security Council, which prevents the use of force, remains a problem, with Russia having used its veto 14 times since 2011, preventing further action in its ally Syria, despite more than 400,000 dead. Therefore, whether or not the UN authorizes force depends entirely on the "bias" of the member in question. Council member states at the time, whether they had "sympathy" for the victims or sympathy for the oppressors, as in the case of relations between Russia and Syria. In order to truly protect human rights, unilateral humanitarian intervention should be permitted, regardless of its potential interference with state sovereignty, because interference is justified to prevent pain and save human lives. Furthermore, it can be argued that the creation of a right to humanitarian intervention does not interfere in any way with the doctrine of sovereignty, as the sovereignty of a state that attacks its own people should be considered as lost. According to Western popular sovereignty, “the people govern”, which is the very foundation of democracy. Without the support of the people, a state cannot be considered sovereign, because it is not “legitimate”. Furthermore, a state that deprives its citizens of their human rights is not just. Scholar Rawls said that the first principle of justice in society is that "each person has the same unshakable right to a fully adequate system of equal fundamental liberties." A society that denies a minority group or any rights-respecting citizen basic rights can never be considered just. Nor can it be considered fair that a state that refuses to stop or prevent genocide should be protected by sovereignty. Sovereignty prevents external intervention in situations, despite the fact that there is "no moral difference" between the state where the violations take place and which sends troops and another state which sends them across a border in order to save human lives. Sovereignty therefore only protects the oppressor, and any justice rendered after a massacre does not do justice to those whose deaths could have been avoided if the UN had fulfilled its obligation to protect human rights, because the Security Council cannot reach an agreement. There needs to be more focus on preventing mass deaths so that the United Nations becomes a body truly seen as protecting human rights. Therefore, there should be a right to humanitarian intervention, even when the state does not consent, because human rights should take precedence over sovereignty. The question of abuse Second, the right to humanitarian intervention should exist because the potential for abuse is considered overestimated. . Many of those who oppose humanitarian intervention do so based on the perception that "humanitarian intervention will inevitably be abused." This fear was particularly generated after the intervention in Libya, because for many it "demonstrated that the requirement that the use of force be authorized... is not sufficient to guarantee that the right of intervention will not be not abused by powerful states in pursuit of their own ideology. and self-serving goals. States fear that other powerful states will use their right of humanitarian intervention for economic and political purposes, exploiting the country they have saved. The Russian ambassador notably stressed that NATO's unauthorized intervention created a "dangerous precedent... which could cause acute destabilization... at... the global level". However, "it is widely perceived that Russia and China have exaggerated the danger of abuses and obstructed necessary international action", with both countries being "fiercely condemned" for their repeated refusals to authorize further humanitarian interventions in Syria, thereby reducing the risks. credibility of their complaints. The possibility of abuse certainly exists, but it would have been exaggerated by those who wish to prevent others from interfering in their own affairs, such as China's treatment of the Uyghur population. The defense, which has already been “diverted several times,” should also prevent and punish abuses. For a state to legally use self-defense, an armed attack and a proportionate response are necessary. Or, if no attack has yet taken place, the application of the usual Caroline test; “it will be up to the government to demonstrate a need for instant, overwhelming self-defense, leaving no choice of means or time for deliberation…nothing unreasonable or excessive.” The threshold for the need for humanitarian intervention could be massive human rights violations that the state is unwilling or unable to put an end to. Using the principle of proportionality of jus ad bellum, "if the force used is proportionate to the legitimate purposes of using that force", ensures that any abuse will be punished, because whenever a state has an ulterior motive , the force used is not proportionate. Although ulterior motives are not always obvious, a task force could be formed whenever the right is invoked to observe the actions of the state because their conduct would reveal the truth. Abuses would then be punished by the International Court of Justice, just like the abuse of self-defense, because "justice absolutely requires formal equality" which is ensured by the equal application of law to all States, as in the case of Nicaragua against United States. The court found that the United States had violated its customary law obligation not to use force against another state and was ordered to pay reparations. The United States has not received any special treatment, regardless of its superpower status. Therefore, the issue of abuse can be addressed using strict procedural requirements, failure to comply with which can be punished by the ICJ, and thus abuse does not outright defeat the right of humanitarian intervention. The fatal question of the current lack of support Although sovereignty issues and abuses can be countered, the lex lata currently provides no right to humanitarian intervention and, given the overwhelming majority of states that oppose to this right, the Group of 77 and China, it is very unlikely that such a right will develop in the immediate future. . If this right were ever to develop, it would most likely be through customary international law. There would have to be a “common, coherent and concordant” state practice according to the case United Kingdom v Iceland 1972, an absence of substantial consent after Nicaragua v. UNITED STATES. This practice could be repeated in the future if the Security Council veto continues to be a problem. As there has been no support for the five permanent members of the Council not to use their veto in the face of massive human rights violations, humanitarian intervention will be necessary. continue to be de lege feranda due to the impasse in the Security Council and the resulting inaction in the face of humanitarian crises. Furthermore, it can be argued that the required opinio juris described in the North Sea Continental judgment is already manifest, since Belgium and the United Kingdom have already ruled in favor of this right..