The Legalist Paradigm represents the dominant thinking in the international law of armed conflict. It is an attempt to outline a theory of aggression, and a basis of judgment on the just or unjust nature of a war. It places its claim and is based on six fundamental principles: firstly, that there exists an international society of independent states made up of individuals, secondly that members of the international society have the right to political sovereignty in addition to territorial integrity, that any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against another constitutes aggression and is criminal, that violence is justified to defend or as a means of law enforcement by a victim or any other member of the international society, …show more content…
This strong mindset of prohibition initiated Walzer relaxation of the moral code it stands by, thus leading to his revisions of aspects one, two and five of the Legalist Paradigm. The revision is in regards to the second principal of the legalist paradigm placing the internal societal law of territorial integrity and political sovereignty above all, the third aspect proposing that the use of threat against the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state constitutes aggression, and fifth principal which paramoutly states that nothing but aggression can justify a war. Together these values create a strict non-interventionist policy in which it would always be unjust for a member of the international community to involves themselves in the affairs of a sovereign nation not directly pertaining to them. Walzer revises the legalist paradigm to allow for the intervention on behalf of the international community. The concept of humanitarian intervention is disputed, with Walzer defining it as a response “against the enslavement or massacre of political opponents, national minorities, and religious sects” for if the international community does not intervene, “there may well be no help unless help comes from …show more content…
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
The concept of proportionality of an intervention as stated by Walzer, must be balanced insofar as the intervention is as much like a nonintervention as possible and should be treated as a rescue of the affected persons. For example, treating a genocide with a genocide of the oppressors would defy the concept of proportionality. In once case the goal is balance, and in the other it is rescue. This therefore is stating that no political prerogatives should be taken on behalf of the intervening state as this suggests that ulterior motives were the goal from the
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg
Walzer understands that his ideas are theoretical and probably idealistic in some ways but he also understands that to allow wars to be anything but just is to legalize and encourage aggressive and self serving wars of conquest. Walzer is interested in the development of the idea of what it is for a war to be just. He writes, “Some political theories die and go to heaven; some, I hope, die and go to hell. But some have a long life in this world, a history most often of service to the powers-that-be, but also, sometimes, an oppositionist history. The theory of just war began in the service of the powers” (Walzer 3). The rise of a modern state and the idea of state sovereignty have clouded and wrongly employed the idea of “just war” in using
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
However, he acknowledges that they about abuse the use of force. Consequently, the natural law and legal positivism arguments should be understood as complementary school of thoughts and not “as separate traditions” (p.132). In sum, Bellamy provides that natural law provides justification for the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms, whereas legal positivism does not consider the human rights violations and leaves states to abuse the use of force, as in the case of Iraq. I agree with Bellamy when he asserts that the humanitarian exception in Iraq’s case resulted in abuse when he provides “Abuse refers to the case where moral argument are used to justify a war that not primarily motivated by the moral concerns espoused, but by the short-term interests of those instigating violence” (p 132). Moreover, Bellamy outlines the problems with international law. He sets out that international law has no single authoritative lawmaker in international; there is no judge above the sovereign; that customs are difficult to interpret objectively; that positive law is underdeveloped and doesn’t address the necessary aspects of law keeping; and that there is no defined community-based moral framework in place, thereby making it impossible to establish ethics (p.133). The UN Resolution of 687 that is discussed by Bellamy in the case of Iraq illustrates how it is arguable whether the use of
As states in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The charter additionally outlines exceptions to article 2(4): force used in self-defense the attack must be an armed attack; security council enforcement actions under chapter VII-The security council is authorized under article 39 to determine the existence of any...
The principles of just war are useful and practical for the world of today. However, as globalization increases and continues to hone in on states’ affairs, the principle may begin to lose efficiency. If states continue to do their best to abide by international and set a standard for other states, the possibility could result where all states will begin to do so—anything is theoretically possible. The proficiency of the just war doctrine has been has been proving beneficial in keeping states safe, and protecting states’ sovereignty. The just war theory is presently proving beneficial, though through globalization it could become damaging.
International humanitarian law regulates situations of armed conflict. It applies in the whole territory of the States involved in a conflict, regardless of whether combat actually takes place there.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
Many controversies have arisen nowadays as to whether international law is “natural law”, international law now faces considerable criticism as to its effectiveness as law and doubts as to its actual existence, and its power to bind countries .