Developments in the doctrine of humanitarian intervention since the end of the Cold War

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention has been the topic of an intense debate during the past decade and a half, at the heart of which lies the tension between the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention and the use of force to protect human rights. During the Cold War, state practice was mainly influenced by the bipolar reality and the realist emphasis on state sovereignty and national security. Instances of intervention on humanitarian grounds were limited, and in most cases the argument of self-defence was used to legitimise military intervention in another state. The dissolution of the Soviet bloc and the demise of the bipolar system with the end of the Cold War, however, profoundly altered the structure of international society. In addition to this, in the past fifteen years a number of ethnic conflicts have broken out, which have produced the sort of atrocities that may trigger humanitarian intervention. In this transformed international environment, and especially as a result of developments within the United Nations Security Council, a number of humanitarian interventions have been undertaken. Yet, humanitarian intervention is not an accepted legal doctrine. There are no immediate and absolute answers to the questions whether a right of humanitarian intervention existed prior to the adoption of the UN Charter, or if new legal and political norms of justifiable humanitarian intervention developed or are in the process of developing in the post-Cold War world. This dissertation aims to shed light on these important questions and shall present the development of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention from a theoretical, historical, legal and practical perspective.