Humanitarian Intervention: A dilemma of excusable breach in Absence of Security Council Authorization and the Position After Inception of Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention today operates on an ad-hoc basis and is critiqued for its inconsistent application and uncertain intervention policy criteria. This has often led the powerful nations assume charge and intrude into the affairs of sovereign nations allegedly facing humanitarian crises without the sanction of the United Nations Charter. The so-called "humanitarian" imperatives for such interventions are doubtful as historical record shows lack of consistent state practice to intervene in genuine humanitarian crises such as Rwanda. Further, with the arrival of the "Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect" ("R2P"), the deliberations on "humanitarian intervention' have moved from intervention responsibility. However, the perceived failure of the Security Council to provide requite authorization and the supremacy of influential and powerful nations with veto powers results in situations where unauthorized intervention is justified to enforce human rights standards. The paper critically analyses the legality of unauthorized intervention under international law and lays down the criteria for its justification. Further, the position of humanitarian intervention is discussed as against the conception and role of R2P within the traditional parameters of the use of force by the Security Council.