Definition and Conceptual Basis:
Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military or non-military force by a state or a group of states within the territory of another sovereign state, without the consent of its government, with the primary aim of preventing or stopping widespread human suffering, especially in the case of gross human rights violations such as genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing. This doctrine has gained prominence in post-Cold War international relations, often situated between the conflicting principles of state sovereignty and international moral obligation.
The theoretical foundation of humanitarian intervention lies in Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a global norm endorsed by the United Nations in 2005. It emphasizes that sovereignty is not just a right but a responsibility. When a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities, the international community has a moral and legal obligation to intervene.
Notable Examples:
- Kosovo (1999): Perhaps the most cited instance, NATO launched airstrikes against Yugoslavia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians by Serbian forces. The intervention, although lacking UN Security Council authorization, was largely supported on humanitarian grounds.
- Rwanda (1994): The international community’s failure to intervene during the Rwandan genocide, in which nearly 800,000 people were killed, is often cited as a moral failure that led to the conceptual development of R2P.
- Libya (2011): Under the UN mandate, a NATO-led intervention sought to protect civilians from the Gaddafi regime. Although it initially aligned with R2P, critics argue that it evolved into regime change, thus blurring the ethical legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.
Criticisms and Challenges:
- Selectivity: Humanitarian interventions are often accused of being selective, driven by geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian motives.
- Sovereignty Violation: Critics argue that such actions undermine the principle of state sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of international law as per the UN Charter.
- Unintended Consequences: Many interventions have led to long-term instability (e.g., Libya), raising questions about their effectiveness and aftermath planning.
India’s Stance:
India maintains a cautious approach. It supports humanitarian causes but insists on non-intervention without UN approval, reflecting its traditional adherence to the principle of sovereignty and non-alignment.