EFL Home

The Question of Intervention

Should the international community intervene in a country to stop gross, systematic and widespread violations of human rights? The question was raised in 1998 by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, generating wide debate.
In the wake of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Central Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere, the Secretary-General has argued that the international community should agree on legitimate and universal principles, within the framework of international law, for protecting civilians against massive and systematic human rights violations.
In the ensuing debate, one group of nations has maintained that, in the face of massive rights violations and crimes against humanity, the responsibility of the international community to prevent violations is paramount. Thus, in the last resort, human rights can be legitimately protected through the use of force authorized by the Security Council.
A second group of nations has raised three major questions: Where does humanitarian assistance stop and interference in the internal affairs of states begin? How does one distinguish between humanitarian imperatives and political or economic motivations? Is humanitarian intervention valid only for weak states, or for all states without distinctions?
A third group of states has argued that the notion of humanitarian intervention has the potential to undermine the Charter, eroding the sovereignty of states and threatening legitimate governments and the stability of the international system. They have emphasized that all measures to protect human rights should be taken only with respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and the will of government and people of the country concerned.

Basic Facts About the United Nations, Department of Public Information, 2000