| This dissertation examines the role of international law, and in particular the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, in the decision by the United States to lead two incursions of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Beirut, Lebanon from 1982 to 1984. This study has two primary objectives: to understand the influence international law may or may not have exerted upon Reagan Administration foreign policy, especially toward the employment of military force to resolve problems affecting US interests; and to understand how the doctrine and exercise of humanitarian intervention may be applied more effectively in the future. Intervention would be only a temporary expedient to ensure a minimum standard of universally recognized human rights to residents in unstable countries, or in states in which exploitation of the citizenry is merely another means of exercising sovereign state power. The absence of definitive standards by which the world community could respond to prevent genocide, starvation, or other large-scale deprivation of life, fundamental liberties, and human dignity increases the chances of unilateral intervention by a state, or group of states, that could exploit instability for its/their own selfish purposes.; Only open-source documentary evidence pertinent to the MNF deployments was used.; There is no evidence that the Reagan Administration intended explicitly either to uphold and extend the application of law, or to violate its major principles. While it is clear that senior Administration officers were not insensitive to employment of international law as an image-making tool, there was no serious explication of the MNF in regard to the attributes and liabilities of the law of nations, no substantive discussion of the manifestations of law upon the policy and its management.; From its conduct, the Reagan Administration cannot properly be accused of having willfully violated international law in its policy and actions in Beirut. But neither may it claim credit for upholding international law. It must be concluded that in the rare instance where the MNF acted in general conformity to international legal doctrine, having done so was only happenstance. International law appears to have been mere afterthought. |
