Humanitarian Intervention has gained much attention in International relations, in protecting civilians from the atrocities committed by governments of states has resulted in further problems. Humanitarian intervention has seen the worlds most powerful intervene and engage in military action in conflicts, which states justify and legitimize as a humanitarian cause. One of the main reoccurring problems of Humanitarian intervention is the question of what motivates states to go to war, is to act as neutral component in ending conflict or to take action in fulfilling their own self interests. SOURCE)
In response to the underlying issues of humanitarian intervention, the principle of isibility to protect”, was introduced to protect population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (SOURCE) In order to fully examine the principle of R2P in aiding the problems of humanitarian intervention, we will first discuss the underlying problems of humanitarian intervention, specifically the Rwandan Genocide. Secondly the introduction of R2P in response to the problems of Hl.
Lastly, to answer the question to the fullest potential we will discuss the relative criticisms towards R2P of preventing crimes against humanity, in the case of Yemen. “res When discussing the problems of Humanitarian intervention, it is important to outline the relative differences of HI and the R2P doctrine. Hl only refers to the use of military force, and is not implemented in international law.
The reasons for humanitarian intervention vary as states decisions to use military action could be justified on other grounds, including self-interests. SOURCE) Most importantly Hl focuses on the right of states to intervene whereas R2P emphasizes the responsibility to intervene. (SOURCE) There are many issues facing HI, we will focus on the four most relevant problems. Firstly, there is no basis for Humanitarian Intervention in International law, whereby any military forced used by states on other states is not authorized by the UN. (BAYLIS) Without legitimate laws Humanitarian intervention lacks a framework for when intervention is suitable or not, this adheres to the notion that states that have taken military action for humanitarian purposes have done so illegally.
Another controversial issue with Hl is that states primarily do not intervene for humanitarian reasons. (BAYLIS) This is down to the notion that the powerful states will intervene in conflicts that only effect their own self-interests. This perception of states self-interests is closely linked to the selective response of the international community in times of crisis. (Chomsky) An example of selective response, is the United States intervening in Somalia’s civil war with military force in 1992, (Bellamy, 2002) and the non intervention in of the Rwandan genocide. SOURCE) Lastly, the question of moral principles bringing about problems of abuse, allows states to intervene opens the door to potential abuse of international law. (BAYLIS) This is of importance as it undermines human rights laws.
This is evident in the NATO mission in Kosovo which saw US bombings in causing civilian deaths. (SOURCE) Most importantly adhering to the fact that humanitarian intervention does not solve conflicts or disputes in states but intensifies the already existing issues. The inaction of the international community in failing to prevent or intervene in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, was a humanitarian failure. SOURCE) The events that occurred in Rwanda have significant implications in the international community as the neglected genocide open discussions for R2P. The conflict in Rwanda was a case of internal ethnic violence which started of as a civil war, when president Habyarimana’s plane was shot down, the mass killings of the Tutsi population by the Hutus began immediately. (SOURCE)
The ongoing humanitarian crisis was being reported from within Rwanda, as one journalist stated “a genocidal madness has taken over Rwanda, it is now completely out of control”. SOURCE) In a report published in 1999, the United Nations responded stating that one of the critical claims and failures that the security council owned up to was the fact the “international community did not prevent the genocide, nor did it stop the killings once the genocide has begun” (United Nations, 1999). In observing the in action of the international community in response to Rwanda, the problems of humanitarian intervention are evident, in the lack of will from states due to self-interest and selective responsibility.
In addition, lack of political will also played a role in the in action of the international community as there was much dispute of the question of morale. This is evident in the length in which the international community came to terms with the atrocities in Rwanda, although the term ‘genocide’ had been used long before this event the powerful states, mainly the United States, which had the means of preventing and intervening did not believe that genocide had been committed. (SOURCE) However, because of the lack of national interest, even when it was apparent that genocide had been committed, the world still turned a blind eye.
It was not until the Rwandan patriotic front from the Tutsi guerilla army defeated the militias that the genocide had come to an end. (Holzgrefe, Keohane, 17) In response to the problems of HI, the principle of R2P, in the 2001 report of the ICISS, attempted to resolve the tension between the competing claims of sovereignty and human rights by building a new consensus around the principles that should govern the protection of endangered peoples. (SOURCE) The principle of, R2P was adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit (SOURCE).
The doctrine, declared that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The R2P doctrine outlined the responsibilities that states have in successfully intervening in humanitarian efforts, these obligations include the responsibility to prevent, to react and to rebuild. (SOURCE) Although the induction of R2P into international law brought out a framework for humanitarian intervention with justification, the complexity of intervention is present.
In order to assess the relative criticism of R2P, the principles of international affairs will be discussed in relation to the recent crimes against humanity and violation of human rights committed in Yemen. Chomsky, states that the maxim Thucydides as a principle; whereby the strong do as they wish while the weak suffer as they must. (SOURCE) This could be considered to imply that responsibility, lies with the worlds most powerful and just as in the case of humanitarian intervention these states often take their own interest in to consideration before the victims.
This notion is present in todays humanitarian efforts, whereby one power state, Saudi-Arabia led coalition intervention in Yemen, which is funded through the sales of arms and weapons by another power state, United Kingdom. (SOURCE) This is of importance to the principle of R2P as both states are have breached international law, however, because of the power the states hold in the international community the R2P doctrine fails to prevent and take action against the states. In addition, R2P is considered to be a subcase of the ‘right of humanitarian intervention’. Chomsky)
The Saudi-Arabia-led “coalition” intervened in Yemen with the aim of restoring president Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. The intervention was backed by the UN security council resolution 2216 this is of importance, as the atrocities being committed in Yemen have been allowed to happen under the United Nations. (WEARING, REPORT) However, the principle of responsibility to protect has been alienated as the Saudi coalition refers Hadi’s administration as the ‘legitimate government’, but the responsibility of their actions is not within the outlines of responsibility to protect the victims in danger.
Furthermore, the backing of the intervention by the UN, allows for the UK government to continue to support Saudi-Arabia in violating international law. Lastly, R2P lies within the five permanent members of the security council, of which two are the most powerful states in the world; The United Kingdom and United States. (Chomsky) This is of importance as it reinforces the principle of maxim Thucydides in international affairs, it further calls into question the neutrality and capability of the United Nations in implementing and maintaining international law at an international level.
In the case of Yemen, although SaudiArabia is the main force behind the atrocities, which a year into conflict have cost the lives of around 3,000 civilians with 900 of them being children, (Wearing, report) The United Kingdom plays an important role in arming the coalition and considered to be violating human rights laws. This is of importance as it shows that R2P in has no significance at an international level and the intervention by Saudi Arabia further illustrates the failures of Humanitarian intervention under R2P, in solving problems but rather created new ones from the destruction and humanitarian cost.