The UN Charter: The Foundation of the Absolute Prohibition of the Use of Force
Humanitarian intervention is an armed action by states on the territory of another country to stop mass human rights violations. It sparks deep legal controversy because it strikes at sovereignty—the foundation of the international order. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter categorically mandates refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of other states. This prohibition is the cornerstone of the post-war world, and exceptions to it (such as self-defense) are few. This article explores how modern legal thought attempts to reconcile this prohibition with the moral obligation to save lives in extreme situations.
Humanitarian Intervention: The Conflict Between Ethics and Law
The fundamental dispute over intervention is a clash of two fears: the fear of the chaos of war and the fear of passivity in the face of slaughter. The case of Kosovo became a symbol of this dilemma when NATO's actions were described as "illegal but legitimate." This paradox shows that procedural correctness sometimes fails in the face of tragedy. In such moments, the philosophy of law becomes an ethical compass. The Radbruch Formula teaches that when the contradiction between the letter of the law and justice reaches an "unbearable level" (lex iniustissima non est lex), positive law loses its nature. Ronald Dworkin complements this with the principle of equal concern and respect—a state governed by the rule of law must protect the dignity of every human being, regardless of their citizenship.
R2P Replaces the Classic Right to Intervene
The evolution of thought led to the replacement of the "right to intervene" with the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which defines sovereignty as the responsibility to protect the population. The Rome Statute specifies the thresholds of crimes that mandate a response: genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The ICISS Report introduced six criteria for legitimizing operations, including the principle of ultima ratio (last resort), proportionality of means, and a reasonable prospect of success. Crucial here is the dualism of the law of war: ius ad bellum (the right to go to war) does not exempt one from observing ius in bello (the rules of conduct in war). An intervention that worsens the fate of those protected is a contradiction of itself.
Lon Fuller and the Eight Principles of the Internal Morality of Law
Lon Fuller emphasized that law must possess an internal morality—it must be clear, consistent, and public so as not to become a tool of tyranny. Hannah Arendt warned against the "banality of evil"—a situation where blind obedience to procedures allows for the commission of crimes. History teaches us through painful lessons: inaction in Rwanda led to genocide, while the intervention in Libya demonstrated the risk of abuse. To avoid the slippery slope effect, where humanitarianism masks political interests, we need rigorous criteria. An example of progress is the African Union, which in its Constitutive Act recognized sovereignty as a lack of indifference toward war crimes.
Conclusion
Humanitarian intervention remains a paradox in which war becomes a tool for defending humanity. Yet, in the mirror of intervention, do we not see only the reflection of our own fears and ambitions, hidden behind grand declarations of human rights? True sovereignty is not about inviolable borders, but the capacity for empathy and the readiness to provide aid, even against one's own interests. Philosophy reminds lawyers that without justice, law is an empty shell, and without law, justice can be a dangerous blade. Ultimately, intervention is a test of what our declarations are truly worth in the face of the greatest tragedies.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF