-
3. No Justice Without Power: The Case for Humanitarian Intervention
- Fordham University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
3 No Justice Without Power: The Case for Humanitarian Intervention Alexander Van Tulleken, M.D. Blind Justice Blind Justice is usually portrayed as an iconographic blend of Themis and Justitia, the respective Greek and Roman goddesses of justice. Her figure oversees courthouses throughout the world: a blindfolded lady holding scales and a sword. Her blindfold renders her impartial; the sword she holds gives her power. This power can take many forms: diplomatic negotiation, sanctions and trade embargoes, and, finally, the threat and use of military force. It is the use of military force with which this chapter is concerned ; specifically the use of force for the purposes of human protection (as distinct from purposes of belligerence, self-defense, or democracy promotion). The ‘‘Justice’’ sought by exertion of this power is understood as the enforcement of international human rights laws and norms. For the sake of clarity the term ‘‘humanitarian intervention’’ is used here to describe ‘‘the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.’’1 There are ethical, legal, and practical problems in justifying the use of force in this way. There are very few cases where human rights abuses are so gross as to justify the use of force across international borders, and perhaps an even smaller number where an 42 ALEXANDER VAN TULLEKEN, M.D. intervention could be expected to halt, or even ameliorate, suffering . Nonetheless there are situations in which humanitarian intervention is justified. It can still be said that there are no words for these situations; it is not possible to create succinct definitions when describing such events. Atrocities from the death camps of World War II, to Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields and Idi Amin’s Uganda, to Rwanda and Darfur, do not all fit neatly into one category. Yet however hard it is to define what might constitute unacceptable abuse, or to set a threshold for intervention, it is still possible to appeal to the international community’s intuitive sense that, in certain cases, it is simply not acceptable to stand by observing the worst abuses of populations by their states. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan captured the dilemma eloquently when he asked: ‘‘If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica —to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?’’2 The international community’s conventional response to atrocities such as the Rwandan genocide has mainly consisted of humanitarian assistance in the form of, amongst other things, medical and food aid. This has proved woefully inadequate to ameliorate crises or end suffering. In many cases it has prolonged the suffering and dissuaded governments that might have intervened from taking more forceful measures. At best it is only a stopgap, a way for governments and donor populations to be seen to be doing something without becoming involved politically or militarily. During the genocide in Rwanda, the French NGO Medecins Sans Frontieres took out advertisements in Le Monde to publicize the crisis which read ‘‘On n’arrête pas un génocide avec des médecins,’’3 translating as ‘‘You can’t stop genocide with doctors .’’ There are circumstances in which humanitarian assistance alone is unable to prevent deaths that are being deliberately in- flicted. It can only help as part of a wider response to halt those states that would deliberately abuse their populations. This suggests a leaning toward military force when confronted with genocide and other crimes against humanity. When the use of force is available as an option it becomes far easier for states to pursue other less controversial and less costly methods of halting [3.81.221.121] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 19:16 GMT) NO JUSTICE WITHOUT POWER 43 atrocities. If the international community, either as a collective body in the United Nations or as individual states, does not lean toward humanitarian intervention there is a risk, seen clearly in Rwanda and other neglected atrocities, that we will lean so far away as to do nothing at all when confronted with gross human rights abuses that might be prevented. The principles of justice, embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and in the legal systems...