There are limits not to cross even for dictators. They think they have the right to do whatever they wish to their people. But the conscience of people and the dynamics of global politics do not allow them.
Likewise, the international community stood up and told Libya’s Gaddafi that he has no right to massacre his own people. This is a late but welcome move. Its importance goes beyond the Libyan case as it sends a clear message to all dictators of the world that they are not free to kill.
Once more we understand the moral limits to territorial sovereignty and the old principle of non-intervention. No one can hide behind these outdated terms from the 19th century to go ahead with massacres under the protective shield of sovereignty and non-intervention. No concept can serve to protect a state that engages in massive, widespread and systematic killings of its own citizens.
The borders of a state are not the walls of a prison in which the lives of its “inmates” are left to the mercy of the “guards,” that is, the dictators. The conscience of the people, as well as international humanitarian law, does not accept turning a country into a prison camp. People interfere, international organizations get involved, democratic governments take part to stop the dictators who cross moral limits. However late, limited, calculated and in some cases ineffective these may be, the dictators would know that one day they will be held accountable by their own people and the international community.
In this context humanitarian intervention is a means to force dictators to comply with international human rights laws. I know some who, based on the idea of sovereignty and order, would oppose humanitarian intervention. To them, we should issue the reminder that the “rights of states” come from the rights of individuals/citizens and therefore do not have any autonomous moral standing. The right of autonomy and thus sovereignty for states is derived from the respect on the part of the state for the right of the individual’s autonomy. If the ultimate justification for the existence of states is the protection of the natural/basic rights of citizens, then, as Fernando Teson argues in his book “Humanitarian intervention,” “a government that engages in substantial violation of human rights betrays the very purpose for which it exists.” As a result, the government loses not only domestic but also international legitimacy. Therefore, in such a case even foreign armies are morally entitled to help victims of oppression in overthrowing dictators.
The subject of international direct action should not be confined to genocide, enslavement and mass murder; serious, disrespectful, yet not genocidal oppression also justifies international military action.
Moreover, international order and peace are sustained better in an international system that consists of countries respectful to the basic rights of its citizens. This is repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the post-Cold War era. Starting with Resolution 688 on Northern Iraq, the UNSC considered humanitarian crises emanating from massive human rights violations as “threats to international peace and security,” authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Today it is crystal clear that there is a linkage between international peace and security and humanitarian crisis.
Furthermore from an international law perspective, it can be argued that the non-intervention principle is not an absolute norm in the contemporary international normative system. The UN Charter 2(7) forbids intervention in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. But what are the “matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction”? International lawyers argue that to the extent a matter has been internationalized, the traditional prohibition against “intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a state” is inapplicable. International undertakings have transformed the human rights violations that constitute a humanitarian crisis from domestic jurisdiction to international jurisdiction.
When and if, as Michael Walzer writes in his book “Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad,” the violation of human rights is on a scale which “shocks the moral conscience of mankind,” direct military action authorized by the UN is morally and legally justified to stop the continuation of gross violations of human dignity and rights. This applies to the Libyan case as well.
My only concern is that this humanitarian cause should not be sacrificed to the eccentricities of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his tendencies to show off in order to secure re-election next year. This will be really, really ugly.
Likewise, the international community stood up and told Libya’s Gaddafi that he has no right to massacre his own people. This is a late but welcome move. Its importance goes beyond the Libyan case as it sends a clear message to all dictators of the world that they are not free to kill.
Once more we understand the moral limits to territorial sovereignty and the old principle of non-intervention. No one can hide behind these outdated terms from the 19th century to go ahead with massacres under the protective shield of sovereignty and non-intervention. No concept can serve to protect a state that engages in massive, widespread and systematic killings of its own citizens.
The borders of a state are not the walls of a prison in which the lives of its “inmates” are left to the mercy of the “guards,” that is, the dictators. The conscience of the people, as well as international humanitarian law, does not accept turning a country into a prison camp. People interfere, international organizations get involved, democratic governments take part to stop the dictators who cross moral limits. However late, limited, calculated and in some cases ineffective these may be, the dictators would know that one day they will be held accountable by their own people and the international community.
In this context humanitarian intervention is a means to force dictators to comply with international human rights laws. I know some who, based on the idea of sovereignty and order, would oppose humanitarian intervention. To them, we should issue the reminder that the “rights of states” come from the rights of individuals/citizens and therefore do not have any autonomous moral standing. The right of autonomy and thus sovereignty for states is derived from the respect on the part of the state for the right of the individual’s autonomy. If the ultimate justification for the existence of states is the protection of the natural/basic rights of citizens, then, as Fernando Teson argues in his book “Humanitarian intervention,” “a government that engages in substantial violation of human rights betrays the very purpose for which it exists.” As a result, the government loses not only domestic but also international legitimacy. Therefore, in such a case even foreign armies are morally entitled to help victims of oppression in overthrowing dictators.
The subject of international direct action should not be confined to genocide, enslavement and mass murder; serious, disrespectful, yet not genocidal oppression also justifies international military action.
Moreover, international order and peace are sustained better in an international system that consists of countries respectful to the basic rights of its citizens. This is repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the post-Cold War era. Starting with Resolution 688 on Northern Iraq, the UNSC considered humanitarian crises emanating from massive human rights violations as “threats to international peace and security,” authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Today it is crystal clear that there is a linkage between international peace and security and humanitarian crisis.
Furthermore from an international law perspective, it can be argued that the non-intervention principle is not an absolute norm in the contemporary international normative system. The UN Charter 2(7) forbids intervention in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. But what are the “matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction”? International lawyers argue that to the extent a matter has been internationalized, the traditional prohibition against “intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a state” is inapplicable. International undertakings have transformed the human rights violations that constitute a humanitarian crisis from domestic jurisdiction to international jurisdiction.
When and if, as Michael Walzer writes in his book “Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad,” the violation of human rights is on a scale which “shocks the moral conscience of mankind,” direct military action authorized by the UN is morally and legally justified to stop the continuation of gross violations of human dignity and rights. This applies to the Libyan case as well.
My only concern is that this humanitarian cause should not be sacrificed to the eccentricities of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his tendencies to show off in order to secure re-election next year. This will be really, really ugly.
No comments:
Post a Comment