COURIER ONLINE

THE STANLEY FOUNDATION

Resources
Conference report(s):
"Problems and Prospects for Humanitarian Intervention"
Acrobat PDF

Common Ground
radio program(s):
"Intervention on Behalf of Humanity"
Transcript
RealAudio

Since the end of the Cold War there have been few foreign policy issues that have polarized the international community more than the issue of humanitarian intervention. At the heart of the controversy is the principle of sovereignty, and whether the violation of humanitarian norms by a state constitutes a right and obligation to intervene by the international community.

In recognition of the challenge posed by this and other issues, the Stanley Foundation convened its 35th annual conference on the United Nations of the Next Decade from June 11 to 16, 2000, in Vail, Colorado. The conference brought together a diverse group of participants from the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, and the US government. Conference objectives were ambitious. Participants were asked to identify when military-led humanitarian intervention might be justified, who can and should decide when intervention should occur, what elements are needed for an intervention to succeed, and what role the United Nations should play.

Sovereignty is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the fundamental principle of international order. Most states, many of them small and recently constituted, remain opposed to any general subordination of national sovereignty to humanitarian norms—although they might support humanitarian intervention in specific cases. However, international norms have moved the fulcrum in favor of more often putting humanitarian concerns before those of sovereignty—a reflection that sovereignty is now understood differently than a decade ago. As such, humanitarian interests sometimes constitute a ground to violate national sovereignty. However, the matter remains highly controversial, and sovereignty is still a key pillar of international order. Participants concurred that, "...we should not be handicapped by state sovereignty, though we should also not underestimate it."

Guidelines
Because of the controversial nature of humanitarian intervention, there was broad agreement that the "bar" for the use of force in the pursuit of humanitarian objectives should be high. Some participants suggested a list of criteria that would help decide when humanitarian intervention should occur. However, much of the criteria offered by the participants were vague and not specifically defined. Some urged the creation of guidelines for the Security Council that would advise international action in response to the "violation of humanitarian law." Others opposed this saying such a guideline would be too restrictive and strongly urged that the broader "protection of human rights" be invoked.

In the end, many participants were reluctant to precisely define what might constitute the need for humanitarian intervention. As one participant put it, "I can't tell you what such a reason [for humanitarian intervention] is, but I know it when I see it."

Although humanitarian intervention and sovereignty remain controversial, the likelihood that a humanitarian operation will occur in the future has increased. Thus it is necessary to ask what role the United Nations should play in humanitarian intervention. The United Nations' ability to foster peace in past operations in Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere have been less than successful and have raised questions about the United Nations' ability to carry out robust military operations.

While the United Nations has many years of experience deploying troops for peacekeeping duties, the quality of these troops and their mission definition for these operations have been left wanting. Furthermore, a humanitarian intervention operation could mean that combat by UN troops is a distinct possibility. Can the United Nations field troops that are capable of combat operations was an often-raised question. To most of the participants, the answer is no—at least not now. Therefore, the United Nations should foster coalitions of willing states who have trained troops and deployment capabilities in place that are required to carry out a humanitarian intervention operation.

UN Role
To many of the participants, the United Nations' comparative advantage in humanitarian intervention lies in fitting the military effort into the larger political and social objectives. In effect, the United Nations should be the coordinator and organizer of a humanitarian intervention operation and should have the strategic and organizational capabilities to form an effective intervention force with a clear mandate and mission definition.

The United Nations' first role for a humanitarian intervention should be to authorize and sanction the use of force. For many participants, the UN Security Council should play this authorizing role. Citing Chapter VII and authorizing the use of force, the Security Council would add legitimacy to any action undertaken by a coalition of willing states, especially one that contained a major power. Such authorization would help to ease fears by small states over military action.

Chapter VII, Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken...to maintain or restore international peace and security.

However, there may be instances where the need to act supercedes UN authorization. In the case of deadlock in the Security Council, some felt regional organizations should have leeway for deciding on intervention, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization did in Kosovo. Furthermore, many in the group underlined the need for exceptional individuals to exercise judgment in the face of competing values, complicated relationships, and unpredictable developments. In the end, the group concurred that a case-by-case approach will be the road most likely taken—even at the risk of double standards and a regression to pure power politics.

Military vs. Civilian
Once the military operation has ended, the United Nations' primary role should be in ensuring a smooth transition from the military to the civilian phase of the operation. Key to a successful transition is reconstituting the state's civil and administrative functions, most importantly the rule-of-law. To achieve this, the United Nations should pursue the creation of a rapid-reaction police force complete with judicial capability that can be called upon to resurrect policing and a judicial system. Reinstating the rule-of-law within the society will help establish a sound foundation from which the United Nations can coordinate aid relief and political and economic development.

However, the United Nations' ability to successfully coordinate a humanitarian intervention operation depends heavily on the commitment by the international community to support such operations from beginning to end. Many participants highlighted this commitment as a key element for successful intervention, although this has been undermined by the diffusion of responsibility within the UN system.

Sufficient forces for UN operations are rarely forthcoming from the 80 countries that have signed standby agreements. Furthermore, participants highlighted the US commitment problem in terms of funding or political support for new initiatives at the United Nations. Time and again the United States has refused to provide the United Nations with the resources it needed for humanitarian operations, and then criticized it for not being up to the challenge.

Clear Strategy
Mission definition is another critical element. Missions should have clarity of purpose, a clear and robust mandate, and a clear strategy from initial intervention to state reconstitution. Finally, effective coordination in the transition from military to civilian rule is a critical area. As one participant noted, the "...disjuncture between magnitude of military might and [paucity] of civilian efforts on the ground," has repeatedly undermined the success of humanitarian intervention.

Humanitarian intervention has proven to be one of the most controversial issues facing the international community today. The likelihood of the international community undertaking operations in the future has only increased, and therefore it behooves the international community, especially the United Nations, to assess past operations so that they can prepare for operations in the future. Sovereignty is still the fundamental principle for international order, but consensus is building so that states cannot use sovereignty as a shield when they violate humanitarian norms.