Sovereignty vs. Humanitarian Intervention

In a century where the most valued concept is human rights within international law, countries worldwide have found their sovereignty challenged multiple times by international organizations or directly by states on this ground. Consequently, human rights have become a huge source of pressure on every government, and this respect extends to all aspects, including conflicts, political rights, and social rights. In cases of severe violations of human rights, states have granted themselves the right to intervene militarily, thereby intruding into the internal affairs of other states, which challenges one of the fundamental principles of international law—state sovereignty.

Sovereignty in international law can be hard to define since there is no universally accepted definition by legal bodies. However, its concept has been articulated internationally in various instances, offering a broad interpretation. This definition can be based on sovereign equality, as mentioned in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, territorial integrity in Article 2(4), domestic jurisdiction in Article 2(7), and, finally, political independence. An approximate understanding can also be drawn from court cases like the Corfu Channel Case (1949), which affirmed Albania's sovereignty through the doctrine of territorial sovereignty.

Through these diverse sources, we can seek to use simple terms: sovereignty means that no authority is superior to a state. No nation has the right to order other countries, and a state is its own "boss." It can do whatever it wants, within the limits of the agreements it has made, and no country has the right to intervene in another country's affairs. Sovereignty not only implies a nation's legitimacy but also gives equality because, if every state is sovereign under international law, they are therefore legally equal with the same rights and obligations. Sovereignty is not based on a country’s economy, politics, or population size but on formality and legality. This definition has established equality, fairness, and credibility among all member states, yet humanitarian intervention has challenged this deep-rooted rule.

One of the earliest examples of humanitarian intervention can be traced back to the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s against the Ottoman Empire. This conflict saw massacres of Greek Christians, prompting European powers to launch diplomatic and military interventions against the Ottoman Empire. Another example is the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, which sparked international outrage and condemnation. While there was no military intervention, Mussolini's Italy faced strong sanctions from the League of Nations (the UN's predecessor).

However, the concept of humanitarian intervention gained greater prominence after World War II, following the atrocities and genocides committed during the war. States began using humanitarian intervention more frequently in all its aspects—economic sanctions, political isolation, embargos, diplomatic condemnation, and even boycotts, such as exclusion from the Olympic Games. Notable examples include the international isolation and sanctions imposed on South Africa due to apartheid. This isolation extended to the boycott of the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games by African nations because New Zealand participated after playing rugby matches against South Africa. Another example is North Korea, which faced sanctions for political repression, the creation of concentration camps, and mass killings.

Numerous other examples exist, but humanitarian intervention reached new heights in the early 1990s, with interventions not only in economic and diplomatic spheres but also through direct military actions within the sovereign territory of states. In 1991, a coalition led by the United States established a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the Kurdish population from Saddam Hussein’s bombings, preventing genocide. Similar actions occurred during the Bosnian War (1992-1995) to protect Bosnians from massacres, and again in Kosovo (1999), when NATO intervened militarily to protect Kosovo Albanians from Serbian forces. These events laid the groundwork for the formalization of humanitarian intervention through a UN resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 2005.

This UN doctrine is known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It emphasizes that states have a primary responsibility to protect their populations from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. If a nation fails to protect its population, the international community has a responsibility to intervene to protect civilians. Furthermore, only the Security Council has the authority to sanction humanitarian interventions. The first application of this doctrine followed Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized international intervention in Libya during the Arab Spring in 2011. This was followed by intervention in Syria in 2014.

In conclusion, the debate between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention highlights the challenge of balancing a nation's right to sovereignty with the moral obligation to prevent human rights abuses. While state sovereignty remains a cornerstone of international law, the development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine has provided a framework for justifying violations of this fundamental right. This evolution of international law demonstrates how the protection of human rights has become a priority in the modern world.

The contents of the article represent solely the ideas and opinions of the author and in no way the opinions of Bocconi University or the IUS@B association.