Humane interference

In international policy, the humane idea of interference appeared during the Guerre of Biafra (1967 - 1970). The conflict involved a terrible famine, largely covered by the Western mediums but completely ignored by the Heads of States and government in the name of neutrality and non-interference. This situation involved the creation of ONG as Doctors without borders which defends the idea that certain exceptional sanitary situations can justify on a purely extraordinary basis the questioning of sovereignty of the States. The concept was theorized at the end of the Années 1980, in particular by the law professor Mario Bettati and the politician Bernard Kouchner.

Precursors

In its work Of iure belli ac pacis (1625) Hugo Grotius had already approached the possibility of intervening if a tyrant would make abominable acts.

The idea of going in a foreign country “to help” the population there is old: at the century, one spoke then “about intervention of humanity”. Europeans thus called their actions to go, officially, to save the Christians living in Turkey, but semi-officially, to destabilize the Sultan of Turkey, Abdülhamid II. In the name of this “intervention of humanity”, “atrocities” were called upon.

Definitions

The defenders of the humane interference justify it mainly in the name of a morals of the urgency: “one does not let people die”. It draws its base in the Universal declaration of the human rights of 1948. For them, an interference is thus legitimate only when it is justified by a massive violation of the Human rights and that it is framed by a supranational authority, typically the Safety advice of the United Nations.

Although, since December 1988, the concept of interference humane is recognized by the international law, some think that it should remain in the sphere of the values strictly morals. This concept is indeed completely contrary with the bases of the international law which lays out that a State is not bound by a legal provision that if it accepted it by ratifying a treaty or while adhering to a preexistent rule.

In practice, the actions of humane interference are always carried out by national quotas, which can imply two relatively different situations:

The Right of interference , term created by the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979, is the recognition of the right which have one or more nations to violate the national sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by the supranational authority. In practice, in the name of the humane urgency, it is not rare that the mandate is provided retroactively; thus the intervention of the France in Ivory Coast was done initially without mandate of UNO (this example is criticizable because France was reached within the framework of the agreements of defense which bind it to the Ivory Coast).

The to have of interference is the obligation which is made in any State provide assistance, at the request of the supranational authority. It is obvious that it is this concept which is closest to the original concept of humane interference. It is also largely rejected by the Member States of UNO which see an unacceptable questioning there their prerogatives.

Limits

In spite of the generous ideas of the concept, which places at the first rank of the values like the democracy or the respect of the rights of the human person, it right from the start caused the questioning, even criticism.

In the facts, a mission of interference is sometimes contrary with the fundamental objectives of UNO (the maintenance of peace), in any case always in contradiction with article 2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations: “No provision of this charter authorizes the United Nations to intervene in the businesses which primarily raise of the national competence of a State” .

For many lawyers, the creation of this concept does not take place to be. Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations contains already many provisions going in this direction, in particular, in Chapters VI and VII. It would thus not be of the creation of a new right, but simply about the implementation of already existing rights.

More fundamental than this problem of right, the humane interference suffers from a certain number of contradictions which are mainly due to the confusion voluntarily maintained between right and duty of interference. It is indeed difficult under these conditions of separating the humane mobiles, of the political mobiles and of making sure of the total satisfying of the intervening powers. There is always a risk that the humanitarian serf only of pretext to a will imperialist.

Although she wants to be universal, the declaration of the human rights is strongly influenced by work of the Western philosophers of the Century of the lights and more generally by morals Judeo-Christian. The interference was thus always an action directed since north towards the countries of the south. It is thus not very probable that quotas Ruanda is will be one operations manager day of maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland, or that the Lebanese one will intervene with the Basque Country.

Actually the powerful States have little risk to be the target of an action of interference. For example the populations of Chetchnia are undoubtedly as much in danger today that were to it the Kosovan it there a few years, but the Russia being infinitely more powerful on the international scene than the Serbia, it is not very probable that an international action is set up.

It is thus logical that such a dissymmetrical handing-over of cause of the sovereignty of the States encounters very strong reserves. Thus the top of the G-77, which joins together the poorest states, with condemned in 1990 the “alleged right of humane intervention” proposed by the great powers.

In occident also the humane interference has opponents. Many finds that it resembles a little too much the colonialism of the XIXe century, propagating the values of the liberal democracy and regarding the other cultures as negligible quantity. It to him is also reproached its event-driven character: it tends to be expressed in the heat of the action, to give clear conscience to Western televiewers, and to neglect the conflicts forgotten by the chronic media or distresses.

As the open crisis around the American intervention in Iraq proves it, delicate balance between the repression of the torturers and the respect of the sovereign equality of the nations thus remains to be found.

The recent business of the Arch of Zoe feeds even more the controversy.

Random links: