The legitimacy of military intervention for humanitarian purposes

Abstract

Coming to a consensus about the current status of humanitarian intervention, is probably impossible task. Currently it is practiced both legally and illegally at the same time. I became interested in this subject due to the current situation and war in Syria, where the unilateral military interventions have been criticized, but also silently approved by many states. Further more, now and in the past, perpetrators of unilateral military intervention are rarely brought to justice. Therefore the question arises if the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in customary law been so infringed that it has become worthless? International community's and most significantly the United Nation's failure to stop the nearly 6 years of massacres in Syria has once again brought the concept of humanitarian intervention to the center of discussion. The UN Security Council was set up in the aftermath of WW2 to guarantee securing international peace for the future generations and to stop similar atrocities being repeated. The humanitarian crises in Syria as disastrous as it has been, has made some even conclude that the Security Council is now torn apart irreplaceably. Not only has the Security Council failed to adopt many of its draft resolutions because of vetoes, but four of the five permanent members of Security Council are themselves involved militarily in Syria in one way or the other. Political divisions over Syria have had tremendous consequences. The Security Council has visibly been unsuccessful fulfilling its basic function, which is the maintenance of international peace and security and also failed to uphold its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the Syrian people. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was a global commitment, which was endorsed by all member states of the UN in the 2005 World Summit. Its purpose was to commit to prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The situation in Syria however, has drearily been called a "failure to protect". The persistent political divisions and failures to come close to any diplomatic and peaceful solutions or even a ceasefire, led to the resignation of Kofi Annan as UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy for Syrian crises. Annan, a firm supporter of the R2P doctrine, and creator of six-point plan for peace in Syria, announced that he was resigning because of the failure and what he said had become a 'mission impossible'.