Global Issues: Ethics and Practices of Humanitarian Intervention

Overview

The Politics of Humanitarian Intervention

Through the use of "humanitarian intervention", states use military force to solve humanitarian crises in other states without their consent. This starkly contrasts with standard humanitarian aid, in which organisations offer their assistance in a lawful and controlled manner within the framework of international law. There has been much discussion surrounding the ethical implications of humanitarian action, specifically regarding humanitarian intervention, which pits the principle of protecting human rights against the principle of non-intervention in state sovereignty. Examining a number of historical precedents provides a clearer picture of where the dilemma lies.

Humanitarian Action and Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian action refers to activities conducted by impartial humanitarian organisations like international NGOs, UN agencies, etc. Their goal is to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity during crises, based on the three key principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality.

For example, Doctors Without Borders, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Action Against Hunger all provide emergency relief following natural disasters, epidemics, and conflicts. Their activities include disaster response, healthcare, food/water distribution, providing shelter, education and more.

Importantly, their funding comes from voluntary donations and must not be tied to any political agenda to be considered humanitarian. In reality, however, retaining full independence from donor political interests and agendas can be challenging. Most organisations aim to use funds impartially, but the risk of<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">politicisation</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Watts, I. P. Is Humanitarian Aid Politicized?. E-International Relations, 2017.</div></div></span>remains an issue of concern in the sector.

<h6 class="textbox" font-size:14px>An entire body of philosophical debate is dedicated to the question of whether moral values are universal or indeed subject to "moral relativism". See Harman, G. and Thomson, J. J. (1996) Moral relativism and moral objectivity. ; Gowans, C. (2004) Moral relativism. ; Enke, B., Rodríguez-Padilla, R. and Zimmermann, F. (2023) Moral universalism and the structure of ideology. The Review of Economic Studies, 90(4), 1934-1962.</h6>

Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by states to address a humanitarian crisis in another state, without its consent. It is thus an illegal act whose legitimacy relies on moral considerations. It is thus understandably<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">prone to criticism</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Heinze, E. A. Humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect, and confused legitimacy. Human Rights and Human Welfare, 2011.</div></div></span>, since there are consistent debates about the universality of moral values, and this legitimacy has been in direct confrontation with other principles considered legitimate, especially that of non-intervention.

While both humanitarian action and intervention aim to help victims, they differ significantly in the actors involved, activities, guiding principles and legal status. The neutrality of humanitarian aid is contrasted with the political nature of state interventions, and constitutes the main breaking point between the two.

The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention

The principles and practices of humanitarian intervention have long been the subject of debate. The controversy centres on whether it is appropriate for a state or group of states to use military force against another state in order to prevent or stop human rights abuses.

This issue is particularly contentious because it pits the humanitarian impulse to protect vulnerable populations against the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. The key question is: can any forceful (military) intervention in the affairs of an independent country by another country be justified on humanitarian grounds? If so, when and by whom should such intervention be carried out?

<h6 class="textbox" font-size:14px>According to Article 2.4 of the Charter, the principle of non-intervention includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.</h6>

The principle of non-intervention is a cornerstone of international law. It is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". Non-intervention implies that states have the right to govern themselves without interference from other states. Its purpose is to prevent war and maintain international stability.

However, the principle of non-intervention has been challenged in recent years by the rise of humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">defined</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Massingham, E. Military intervention for humanitarian purposes: does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advance the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends?. International Review of the Red Cross, 2009.</div></div></span>as the use of military force by a state or group of states to protect people within another state from gross and systematic violations of human rights. Humanitarian intervention aims to prevent or put an end to atrocities like ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

<h6 class="textbox" font-size:14px>Examples of intervention include Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, or the Democratic Republic of Congo.</h6>

Those who support humanitarian intervention argue that the international community has a moral obligation to protect people subjected to gross and systematic violations of human rights, even if that protection requires the use of military force. In this regard, they argue that the principle of non-intervention should not be absolute. According to them, in specific situations, the international community should be able to take action to prevent or stop atrocities.

Opponents of humanitarian intervention, on the other hand,<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">argue</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Atack, I. Ethical Objections to Humanitarian Intervention. Security Dialogue, 2002.</div></div></span>that non-intervention is a fundamental principle of international law that should not be violated. They believe that the use of force against another state without its consent violates the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. These critics argue human security is better served through peaceful diplomacy and continuous development rather than military imposition, which can have unwanted side effects. They also claim that humanitarian intervention can be used as a pretext for powerful states to intervene in the affairs of weaker states for their own strategic interests.

One example is the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. In the late 1990s, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), led by President Slobodan Milosevic, engaged in a brutal conflict with ethnic Albanians in the province of Kosovo. The conflict led to a humanitarian crisis, with widespread human rights abuses and war crimes, including forced displacement, massacres, and systematic violence against the civilian population.

By 1999, over 800,000 people had been<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">internally displaced and thousands killed</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Suhrke, A. et al. The Kosovo refugee crisis: an independent evaluation of UNHCR's emergency preparedness and response. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2000.</div></div></span>in the escalating violence. NATO claimed it had an obligation to intervene to protect Kosovo's civilian population from further atrocities and restore stability. However, some critics believed NATO’s intervention was motivated by geopolitical calculations and the pursuit of strategic interests by its member states. They<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">argued</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Henkin, L. Kosovo and the law of “humanitarian intervention”. American Journal of International Law, 1999.</div></div></span>that NATO's real intention was not only to protect human lives and uphold international standards, but also to expand its influence in the Balkans. Other critics believed that the intervention was launched, in part, to prevent a potential refugee crisis that could spill over into neighbouring countries.

The issue of humanitarian intervention is further complicated by the challenge of judging whether the use of force is “justified” or “appropriate”. There are no clear or universally agreed criteria for determining when a situation constitutes a humanitarian crisis that requires intervention. This dilemma has given rise to a number of debates, some more contentious than the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. For example, the US-led invasion of Iraq, which did not obtain UN Security Council approval, comes readily to mind.

OVERVIEW

The United Nations’s Role in Disaster Response

The UN plays a vital role in coordinating global disaster response through key initiatives. The UN Crisis Relief Appeal raises humanitarian funds for emergency disaster aid. The Central Emergency Response Fund swiftly deploys resources where most needed. With climate disasters increasing, these UN mechanisms are critical to provide relief, save lives, and fill response gaps. All in all, international cooperation through UN leadership is a major feature of disaster preparedness and management worldwide these days.

Disasters are unpredictable events that can strike at any time, causing extensive harm to human life, property, and the environment. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, and heavy rainfall,<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">have increased</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021.</div></div></span>in many parts of the world over the past few decades. This underscores the urgent need for effective disaster management and preparedness.

International humanitarian organisations and the United Nations (UN) have taken steps to address this issue. These include the establishment of the UN Crisis Relief and Humanitarian Appeal and the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).

The UN Crisis Relief and Humanitarian Appeal is a mechanism that helps to coordinate the worldwide response to disasters and humanitarian crises. It is a joint effort between the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and humanitarian organisations. This initiative aims to raise funds that support emergency relief in response to disasters and humanitarian crises around the world. The funds raised are channelled towards immediate emergency relief efforts. They involve providing essentials like food, water, shelter, and medical care.

<h6 class="textbox" font-size:14px>Set up in 1998, OCHA’s mission is to mobilise and coordinate effective humanitarian action with national and international actors. It aims to alleviate human suffering and disaster in emergencies, advocate for the rights of people in need, promote preparedness and prevention, and facilitate sustainable solutions.</h6>

The appeal is launched annually. It provides a platform for governments, non-governmental organisations, and other stakeholders to come together and contribute to the global humanitarian response. The approach taken is based on the needs of the affected populations, with priority given to the most critical and immediate ones. Additionally, the appeal urges donors to provide flexible funding. Flexible funding indeed allows financial resources to be used with few or no restrictions, allowing humanitarian actors to allocate funds according to changing demands.

Another critical component of international disaster response is the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). The CERF was established in 2006 to provide rapid and predictable funding to support humanitarian responses to disasters and crises. The fund is managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and is financed through voluntary contributions from governments, the private sector, and individuals.

The CERF stands out for its ability to respond quickly to emergencies. When a disaster strikes, the CERF can release funds within 24 hours to support immediate life-saving activities. In addition to rapid and predictable funding, the CERF also supports the coordination of humanitarian responses. It works with humanitarian organisations to identify gaps in the response and to ensure that resources are allocated to the most critical needs.

The Central Emergency Response Fund has contributed significantly to humanitarian responses to disasters and crises around the world. According to its official website and reports from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), since 2006, the CERF<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">has provided</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Central Emergency Response Fund. Who We Are.</div></div></span>over $5.5 billion to support emergency response efforts in over 100 countries. The CERF<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">has significantly contributed</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Central Emergency Response Fund. The UN’s global emergency fund helped the world's most vulnerable people through unprecedented crises. 2021.</div></div></span>to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, allocating funds to support the provision of medical supplies and the health of vulnerable populations.

The UN Crisis Relief and Humanitarian Appeal and the UN Central Emergency Response Fund are two important tools used in the global response to disasters. These mechanisms are designed to swiftly provide funding for emergency response efforts and the coordination of humanitarian response. This coordination is essential to ensure that efforts are not duplicated and that resources are distributed effectively to maximise their impact. Given the growing frequency of disasters and crises worldwide, these mechanisms<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">will play</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>World Economic Forum. Global Risks Report 2023.</div></div></span>an increasingly critical role in supporting international humanitarian action.

OVERVIEW

Humanitarian Advocacy: Speaking for the Voiceless

Anti-globalisation movements have emerged in response to perceived negative aspects of globalisation. They have grown largely in opposition to growing economic inequality and the erosion of cultural identity, both perceived consequences of globalisation. Critics argue that globalisation benefits the wealthy few while leaving smaller businesses and developing economies behind. Anti-globalists employ different tactics to change the current economic model of globalisation. The impacts of these movements remain uncertain, and policymakers face the challenge of addressing these concerns while acknowledging the potential benefits of global integration.

Humanitarian advocacy promotes the provision of support, assistance and protection for those affected by conflicts, disasters and emergencies. It involves standing up for the rights of those in need and ensuring that they are given the aid they require to rebuild their lives.

Victims of war and natural disasters are indeed often unable to express their needs clearly due to their difficult circumstances. One of the primary challenges of humanitarian advocacy is to ensure that their voices are heard and their rights protected. This takes a coordinated effort between humanitarian organisations, government agencies and other stakeholders. Collectively, they strive to design plans and implement actions to meet the specific needs of vulnerable populations.

In addition to the promotion of human rights, humanitarian advocacy also focuses on building resilience and promoting sustainable development. This can involve supporting local communities to develop their own solutions to the challenges they face, or promoting sustainable agriculture. This also encompasses strengthening the capacity of local organisations to respond to emergencies and support vulnerable populations.

In practice, humanitarian advocacy covers a wide range of activities aimed at promoting the well-being and rights of individuals affected by conflict or crisis. An illustration of such advocacy is awareness raising, wherein individuals or humanitarian organisations engage in efforts to increase public understanding and awareness of the situation or plight of people in crisis situations.

Various channels, including media campaigns, social media platforms, and public events, are used to<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">inform and educate</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Kane, C. Humanitarian public diplomacy: International calls to action in the digital era. DiploFoundation, 2019.</div></div></span>the public about the situation of people affected by crises, with the aim of mobilising support for them. For example, in 2015, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) launched the #WithRefugees petition and social media campaign to give citizens a voice in influencing government policy towards refugees during a period of increased global migration. The campaign invited people to sign a petition calling on governments to provide protection, education and jobs for refugees. It leveraged celebrity advocacy on social media and used the public response to put pressure on world leaders ahead of UN summits on refugees and migrants.

Humanitarian advocacy also includes lobbying for policy change. Individuals or organisations may work on behalf of people in crisis to influence decision-makers, governments and policymakers to promote social, economic or political actions or policies that meet the needs of people affected by crises. This may entail campaigning for humanitarian assistance, special protection measures, or calling for the provision of essential resources to meet the immediate and long-term needs of communities affected by crises.

A concrete case of humanitarian advocacy in action is the international campaign against the use of landmines. During the 1990s, NGOs such as Handicap International and Human Rights Watch spearheaded efforts to ban landmines, which continued to cause horrific injuries to civilians long after conflicts had ended. By documenting the severe toll of landmines, they lobbied governments to support a ban. In 1997, more than 100 countries signed the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibited the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. This advocacy<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">compelled</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Casey-Maslen, S. Commentaries on Arms Control Treaties Volume 1 (2nd Edition): The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Oxford University Press, 2005.</div></div></span>states to recognise the indiscriminate effects of landmines on civilians and strengthened protections under international humanitarian law.

Human rights advocacy also involves actions aimed at defending the freedom and human rights of individuals or communities affected by human rights abuses. For example, advocacy against human rights violations, such as the use of child soldiers, sexual violence, forced displacement, or arbitrary detentions could be aimed at protecting victims or people affected by these activities.

Overall, humanitarian advocacy means communicating with decision-makers and the public about the plight of people affected by war and natural disasters. The primary objective is to draw attention to the needs of those affected by crises, and to mobilise resources and support to address these needs.

OVERVIEW

War, Mediation and Reconciliation

War causes immense suffering and devastation. To achieve lasting peace, mediation and reconciliation through diplomacy and dialogue are often necessary. Mediation involves neutral third parties facilitating discussions between conflicting groups to find solutions. Reconciliation aims to heal damaged relationships and address underlying causes of conflict to prevent future wars. Historically, mediation efforts like the Camp David Accords and reconciliation processes like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission have helped resolve conflicts and build peace. But this is not always a straightforward process, nor does it always mean the end of conflict.

Interstate Relationships: War and Peace

War can be<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">defined</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>National Geographic. War.</div></div></span>as a state of armed conflict between two or more parties, typically involving the use of military force. Whilst the UN does not provide an official definition of war, it does address the concept of armed conflict in its Charter and several of its resolutions.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that the use or threat of force between States is prohibited, except in cases of self-defence or when authorised by the UN Security Council.

The impact of war is devastating, especially for the people directly affected. Indeed, war can result in dire consequences, including loss of life, displacement of populations, destruction of infrastructure and economic collapse. Furthermore, it can have long-term effects, such as the destabilisation of a country or entire regions, the perpetuation of poverty, and the exacerbation of social and political tensions within states and between nations.

Dialogue has often been seen as the<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">solution</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Watson, A. Diplomacy : the dialogue between states. Routledge, 1982.</div></div></span>to ending war. Mediation and reconciliation provide peaceful, diplomatic methods founded on dialogue to settle disputes and encourage enduring peace.

Diplomacy offers the necessary framework for initiating and sustaining mediation efforts. As a cornerstone of international relations, diplomacy involves conducting negotiations and maintaining relationships between nations to address disputes and promote mutual understanding. Diplomacy has become a widely accepted approach to peacekeeping around the world. Diplomats often use their expertise in negotiation and dialogue to create an environment favourable to successful mediation, thereby facilitating the peace process.

From its beginning as an informal, arcane practice, diplomacy has evolved over the years into a formal, mainstream and bureaucratic practice that now plays a vital role in resolving conflicts and promoting peaceful resolutions through negotiation and dialogue. Diplomacy, as a method of peacekeeping, has received widespread recognition, ranging from high-level negotiations between nation-states to grassroots initiatives aimed at community reconciliation. Modern diplomatic initiatives often pave the way for mediation processes, enabling the participation of neutral mediators and creating an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation.

Peace Through Dialogue: Mediation and Reconciliation

Mediation is a process that involves a neutral third party that is not part of the fight. Through the mediator's intervention, the goal is to facilitate dialogue between conflicting parties with the aim of resolving their differences and reaching a peaceful solution. Mediation can take many forms. In some instances, it is overseen by larger groups, such as governments who participate in official discussions. Alternatively, it may involve smaller groups with community-based processes involving local leaders and civil society organisations.

The Camp David Accords of 1978 are an example of successful mediation. The negotiations took place under the leadership of US President Jimmy Carter, between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in the state of Maryland in the United States. Carter spent 13 days shuttling between the two leaders, acting as an intermediary before an agreement was reached. The accords led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, ending 30 years of war, and included the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. It was<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">considered</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Bercovitch, J. A Case Study of Mediation as a Method of International Conflict Resolution: The Camp David Experience. Review of International Studies, 1986.</div></div></span>a major foreign policy achievement for Carter's presidency.

One of the key benefits of mediation is its ability to bring conflicting parties together in a neutral, non-violent setting, where they can engage in constructive dialogue and explore potential solutions to their disputes. This can help to break down barriers and build trust between opposing sides, ultimately leading to more sustainable peace.

Reconciliation is often associated with mediation and typically follows it. It involves the process of healing and restoring relationships between individuals or groups that have been damaged by conflict. Reconciliation can be achieved in various ways, such as community-based dialogues, healing circles that seek to reconcile communities, or national truth and reconciliation commissions. For instance, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">represented</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Sten, D. J. The impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on psychological distress and forgiveness in South Africa. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2008.</div></div></span>a major effort to confront past abuses committed under apartheid. It gave a voice to victims and helped South African society move forward after a period of intense conflict. Its success made it a model for other countries dealing with human rights abuses emerging from periods of violence or repression.

Reconciliation can address the underlying causes of conflict and promote long-term stability. By tackling the roots of conflict, such as social and economic inequality, discrimination and political exclusion, reconciliation can help prevent future conflict and build more resilient societies.

While war, mediation, and reconciliation are complex and multifaceted topics, they are also interconnected. These words denote varying aspects of the human condition. War arises from violent conflicts over power, resources, or ideology. The devastation brought about by war often creates the conditions for mediation and reconciliation, as conflicting parties need to come to the table to resolve their differences. Similarly, mediation and reconciliation can help prevent future clashes by addressing the underlying causes of tension and promoting more inclusive and equitable societies.