Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law

Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum

Research Handbooks in International Law series

Edited by Nigel White and Christian Henderson

This innovative Research Handbook brings together leading international law scholars from around the world to discuss and highlight the contemporary debate regarding issues of conflict prevention and the legality of resorting to the use of armed force through to those arising during an armed conflict and in the phase between conflict and peace.

Chapter 7: The use of force for humanitarian purposes

Christine Gray

Subjects: law - academic, human rights, public international law, terrorism and security law, politics and public policy, human rights, international politics, terrorism and security

Extract

Humanitarian intervention remains a very controversial area of international law. For many commentators the paradigm case is that of NATO’s 1999 operation over Kosovo, but states are still divided on the legality of this use of force. As Kosovo pursues independence today the question whether it was created by the unlawful use of force is still important. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is strongly opposed by the Non-Aligned Movement, which regards it as a pretext for intervention by powerful states. It is not acceptable to Russia or China. Few states openly support the legal doctrine; even fewer have relied on it to justify their use of force. The African Union (hereinafter ‘AU’) has provision for humanitarian intervention in its Constitutive Act, but there are some questions about the interpretation of this provision. Perhaps of equal importance, the scope of the doctrine remains unclear. What is the threshold for humanitarian intervention? Does the situation have to constitute a threat to international peace and security? Can an air campaign constitute humanitarian action? In recent years the focus has shifted from the controversial doctrine of humanitarian intervention to the more appealing but still problematic ‘responsibility to protect’ (hereinafter ‘R2P’). The interventions in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire have been hailed as the implementation of the R2P doctrine, but this practice has led to divisions between states and between commentators as to the future of this doctrine.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information