The Regulation Of Humanitarian Intervention Within The UN Framework

Humanitarian intervention is a controversial concept.Some experts believe that it emerged in the era of the cold war,posing a threat to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention,while this argument is far from truth.Tracing the development of the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention,this paper concludes that its theory origins from the just war theory and is first put forward by Hugo Grotius in his famous work On the Law of War and Peace and the first humanitarian intervention action occurred in the 16th century,despite the fact that the concept of humanitarian intervention did not exist back then.The 1990s have witnessed the most frequent actions of humanitarian intervention in history.Seven cases are chosen to present the existing problems of humanitarian intervention:the Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS)intervened the Liberian civil war from 1990 to 1997,America and Britain intervened the Kurdish refugee crisis in 1991,America intervened the Somali civil war in 1993,non-intervention of Rwanda genocide in 1994,the NATO intervened the Kosovo crisis in 1999,Australia intervened the East Timorese crisis in 1999 and the NATO intervened the Libyan civil war in 2011.The legitimacy and legality of each case are also analyzed.Among the intervention actions,some succeeded,while some failed,which exposed the limits of humanitarian intervention.National and self-interests have been the most powerful driving force behind the humanitarian interventions;more interests are involved,an intervention will be more likely to be triggered.Selectivity draws the most critics,but since the interveners need to do cost-benefit analysis,weigh the risks and secure support at home and abroad,it will be difficult to rule out the possibility that interveners choose to intervene some not all humanitarian crises.However,all these limits give no reason to deny the necessity of humanitarian interventions,whose existence lies with the occurrence of humanitarian crises.The principle of last resort,avoidance of overusing force and respect of territorial integrity should be upheld when any intervention actions are taken.The most sensitive issue related to humanitarian intervention is regime change,which is opposed by this paper.Given the following concerns that national/self-interests are the most powerful driving force behind the humanitarian interventions,and the proportion of different motives is hard to measure,and political/economic privileges may be given to the interveners when their support is needed for the rebuilding efforts after the end of interventions,this paper believes the prohibition of regime change will be helpful to disperse the doubts and suspicion centered around humanitarian intervention.Targeting the above-mentions shortcomings of the humanitarian interventions,it is suggested that the regulation of humanitarian intervention should be carried out within the UN framework.To this end,three recommendations are put forward to achieve the balance of legality and legitimacy.Currently,the UN Security Council is the only entity who is empowered to authorize humanitarian interventions.Based on case study,it is easy to find the Security Council may be paralyzed by divisions among the five permanent members,being unable to intervene with imminent or ongoing humanitarian crisis;therefore,the UN General Assembly may act as the UNSC's substitute to support member states or regional organizations to take necessary actions under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure.In terms of legitimacy,reporting and investigation mechanisms should be set up within the UN framework to monitor the actions taken by interveners and hold them accountable for their actions.