The validity of humanitarian intervention under international law

The study which follows considers the current approach to State sovereignty, use of force, and human rights, in order to determine the balance which exists between these concepts. A shift in this balance determines the direction of development of the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ The investigation establishes that State sovereignty and certain human rights are at a point where they are viewed as equal and competing interests in the international arena. This leads to the question of whether or not the concept of humanitarian intervention has found any acceptance in international law. It is determined that the right to intervention rests exclusively with the United Nations Security Council. There are, however, obstacles to United Nations action, which necessitate either taking action to remove the obstacles, or finding an alternative to United Nations authorized action. The alternatives provided are unilateral interventions by regional organizations, groups of States or individual States, with interventions by regional organizations being favoured. The study further discusses the requirements which would make unilateral action more acceptable. These same requirements provide a standard against which the United Nations can measure its duty to intervene. Such an investigation was done by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and a synopsis of its Report and Recommendations are included. Finally, the question of responsibility is addressed. State and individual responsibility for two separate types of action are considered. The responsibility of States and individuals for initiating an intervention is considered under the topic of the crime of aggression. The responsibility of States and individual for exceeding the mandate of a legitimate intervention is considered under the heading of war crimes