Analysing the relationship between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention under international law : when is humanitarian intervention justified?

Abstract

State sovereignty and humanitarian intervention are, prima facie, deemed to be two seemingly conflicting doctrines as they are intended to protect two diametrically opposed sets of interests. State sovereignty, on the one hand, is a notion wherein the primary objective is to protect the ability of the State to govern itself, to promulgate its own laws, and to manage its own affairs without the interference of any third-party. It is one of the most cardinal doctrines for the efficient functioning of a State and it is embodied in Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations. Sovereignty is considered to be a residuum of powers left to a State after taking into account its international obligations. As all States enjoy sovereign equality, no one State is permitted to interfere or intervene in the domestic affairs of another State. This is known as the principle of non-intervention, which as a result of the development of new world order, has become a linked concept to that of sovereignty - both of which are now considered to be cornerstones of modern international law. Although each State is sovereign, it nonetheless has a sacrosanct obligation to protect and promote internationally recognised human rights, and to safeguard the well-being of its subjects. The proliferation of human rights comes as no surprise after the recognition of individuals as subjects of international law. Thus, even within their own territory, States can no longer advocate for total and absolute sovereignty as this is difficult to maintain with various international bodies joining efforts to minimize systemic abuses of the State against its subjects. It is precisely because of this fact that the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ has undoubtedly become of the one of the most tendentious and widely debated topics in world politics. Interfering States must tread very lightly in such situations, considering that armed conflict within one country may soon enough become a threat to international peace and security on a much larger and wide-spread scale, potentially leaving in its wake a series of devastating effects. The international forum has not reached consensus as to the legality of humanitarian intervention. Although there have been cases where it was felt that humanitarian intervention was warranted, certain States remain sceptical as to where the fine line of justification can be drawn. This dissertation shall delve into the reality of humanitarian intervention and how the correlation may be drawn with the obstacle of State sovereignty for the ultimate aim of combatting gross abuses of human rights by States which should be primarily concerned with protecting their subjects, rather than with their persecution. Is sovereignty so impregnable as to render all attempts of humanitarian intervention futile?