Do we need to protect countries’ independence when we try to help people in need?

In the realm of global affairs, the question of sovereignty protection in the context of humanitarian intervention sparks a contentious debate. While the principle of state sovereignty is fundamental to international relations, the urgency to address humanitarian crises often challenges this principle.

The facts

Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force or other forms of intervention by one or more states or international organisations to prevent or halt gross and systematic violations of human rights, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, within the territory of another state.

On the other hand, sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law, representing the right of states to govern themselves without external interference. It is a cornerstone of the international order, ensuring stability and predictability in relations between states.

The legal basis for humanitarian intervention is a subject of debate within international law. While the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, Chapter VII of the Charter allows for the use of force for collective security purposes, including in cases of threats to international peace and security.

Additionally, some argue that customary international law and emerging norms, such as the R2P doctrine, provide a legal basis for humanitarian intervention in certain circumstances.

The arguments

On one side of the debate, proponents argue that sovereignty protection is essential to uphold the principles of international law and respect the autonomy of sovereign states. According to this view, interventions that infringe upon state sovereignty risk setting dangerous precedents and undermining the stability of the international system.

Sovereignty is seen as a safeguard against external interference and a cornerstone of statehood, providing nations with the authority to govern their affairs without external coercion.

Moreover, proponents contend that humanitarian interventions can be politicized and manipulated for ulterior motives, such as regime change or geopolitical interests.

Without clear guidelines and safeguards to protect sovereignty, interventions run the risk of being perceived as illegitimate or motivated by self-interest, leading to diplomatic tensions and further instability.

Sovereignty protection is seen as a bulwark against arbitrary interventions and a safeguard for the sovereignty of all nations, regardless of their size or power.

On the other side of the debate, critics argue that sovereignty protection should not be an absolute barrier to humanitarian intervention when states fail to protect their populations from mass atrocities.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine asserts that sovereignty is not a shield behind which governments can commit atrocities with impunity. Instead, it places a responsibility on the international community to intervene when states are unable or unwilling to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity.

Critics contend that prioritising sovereignty over human rights risks perpetuating impunity and allowing atrocities to continue unchecked. They argue that sovereignty protection should not be used as a pretext to shield perpetrators of atrocities from accountability or prevent the international community from fulfilling its moral obligation to protect vulnerable populations.

Moreover, they emphasise that interventions should be conducted under international law and guided by clear criteria, including legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality.