Failed Efforts to Reform Humanitarian Intervention System in the United Nations

Öz

The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in international relations and law. The UN Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII powers, can authorize humanitarian interventions. However, a number of interventions after the Cold War have shown that the political considerations of the five permanent members reduce the effectiveness of humanitarian interventions undertaken by the international community. Scholars who wish to improve this effectiveness have had proposals ranging from trying to remove the veto power of the permanent members in humanitarian intervention discussions to those proposing another cosmopolitan organization that will have a permanent armed force ready to be used in humanitarian crises. This article examines whether or not those proposals are strong enough to give raise any amendment in the humanitarian intervention system. If not, it aims to extract the criteria for the appropriate authority in humanitarian interventions to help future proposals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Humanitarian Intervention,United Nations,Security Council,Veto Power

Birleşmiş Milletlerdeki İnsani Müdahale Sistemini Reform Etmeye Yönelik Başarısız Denemeler

Öz

İnsani müdahale doktrini, uluslararası ilişkiler ve uluslararası hukukun en çok tartışılan konularından biridir. BM Güvenlik Konseyi, BM Şartı VII. Bölüm yetkileri dahilinde, uluslararası topluluğu insani müdahaleleri gerçekleştirme konusunda yetkilendirebilir. Ancak, Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde gerçekleştirilen pek çok insani müdahalenin gösterdiği gibi, beş daimi üyenin politik çıkar hesapları uluslararası toplum tarafından gerçekleştirilen insani müdahalelerin etkisini düşürmektedir. Bu etkiyi artırmak isteyen akademisyenler, daimi üyelerin insani müdahale görüşmelerindeki veto yetkisini kaldırmaktan insani krizlerde kullanılmaya hazır kalıcı bir silahlı kuvvete sahip başka bir kozmopolit örgüt kurmaya kadar pek çok öneride bulundular. Bu makale, bu önerilerin insani müdahale sisteminde herhangi bir değişikliğe neden olacak kadar güçlü olup olmadığını incelemektedir. Makalenin temel amacı, gelecekteki önerilere yardımcı olacağı ümidiyle, insani müdahalelere yetki vermek gücüne haiz uygun makam için gerekli olan kriterleri belirlemektedir.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnsani Müdahale,Birleşmiş Milletler,Güvenlik Konseyi,Veto Yetkisi

Kaynakça

1. 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 ¶ (Oct. 24. 2005)
2. Benjamin, Barry M. 1992. Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention: Legalizing the Use of Force to Prevent Human Rights Atrocities, Fordham International Law Journal 16(1), 120-158.
3. Berger, L.F. 2001. State Practice Evidence of the Humanitarian Intervention Doctrine: The ECOWAS Intervention in Sierra Leone, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 11(3), 605-632.
4. Boucher, D. 1998. Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present, New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Boutros Ghali, Boutros. 2009. Reforming the UN and other International Institutions, (Ed.) Ubuntu Forum Secreteriat, Reforming International Institutions: Another World is Possible.
6. Cox, Brian. 2009. United Nations Security Council Reform: Collected Proposals and Possible Consequences, South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business, 6(1), 89-128.
7. Draft Resolution A/60/L.49, 17 March 2006, Annex ¶14.
8. Draft Resolution A/66/L.42/Rev.2, 15 May 2012, Annex ¶ 20.

9. Evans, Gareth. 1993. A UN Volunteer Military Force—Four Views, New York Review of Books, 40/12.
10. Evans, G. & Sahnoun, Mohamed. 2002. The Responsibility to Protect, Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99-110.
11. General Assembly of the United Nations General Debate of the 68th Session, (Sep. 24, 2013) http://gadebate.un.org/68/france.
12. Glennon, M. J. 2001. Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism After Kosovo, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Global Policy Forum, Statement by Cameron R. Hume, Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, 23 May 1996, retrieved from https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200-reform/41269.html, accessed on 12.12.2015.
14. Gordon, J. 2014. The United Nations Security Council and the Emerging Crisis of Legitimacy, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 40-47.
15. Goulding, M. 2004. Cosmopolitan Purposes and the United Nations, (Ed.) Lorraine M. Elliott and Graeme Cheeseman, Forces for Good: Cosmopolitan Militaries in the Twenty-first Century, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
16. High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, UN Doc. A759/565 ¶ 203 (2 December 2004).
17. Hillen, J. F. 1994. Policing The New World Order: The Operational Utility of A Permanent UN Army, Strategic Review, 22(2), 54-62.
18. http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/RegionalResponsibilitytoProtect.pdf.
19. Hurd, I. 2011. Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), 293-113.
20. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Dec. 2001a), retrieved from http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf, accessed on 08.12.2015.
21. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background (Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignly) (2001b).
22. Joyner, D. H. 2002. The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and a More Persuasive Paradigm, European Journal of International Law, 13(3), 597-613.
23. Kardaş, Ş. 2013. Humanitarian Intervention as a ‘Responsibility to Protect’: An International Society Approach, All Azimuth, 2(1), 21-38.
24. Kelsen, H. 2004. Principle of Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organization, The Yale Law Journal, 53(2), 207-220.
25. Kinloch-Pichat, Stephen. 2004. A UN ‘Legion’: Between Utopia and Reality (London: Frank Cass).
26. Krieg, A. (2013). Motivations for Humanitarian Intervention: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
27. The Kosovo Report: Conflict International Response, Lessons Learned. 2000. The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, 4.
28. Lee, S. 2011. The Feasibility of Reforming the UN Security Council: Too Much Talk, Too Little Action?, Journal of East Asia & International Law, 4(2), 405-418.
29. Levitt, J. 1998. Humanitarian Intervention of Regional Actors in Internal Conflicts: The Case of ECOWAS in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 12(2), 333-375.
30. Lillich, R. B. 1995. The Role of the UN Security Council in Protecting Human Rights in Crisis Situations: UN Humanitarian Intervention in The Post-Cold War World, Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1-18.
31. Macdonald, R. 2000. The Charter of the United Nations as a World Constitution, (Ed.). Michael N. Schmitt, International Law across the Spectrum of Conflict: Essays in Honour of Professor L.C. Green on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Newport: Naval War College.
32. Mahmood, F. 2013. Power Versus the Sovereign Equality of States: The Veto, the P-5 and United Nations Security Council Reforms, Journal of International Affairs, 18(4), 117-138.
33. Martenczuk, B. 1999. The Security Council, the International Court and the Judicial Review: What Lessons from Lockerbie, European Journal of International Law, 10(3), 517-547.
34. Murphy, S. D. 1996. Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
35. O’Connell, M.E. 2000. The UN, NATO, and International Law After Kosovo, Human Rights Quarterly, 22(1), 57-89.
36. Okhovat, S. 2011. The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform, CPACS Working Paper, 15/1.
37. Pattison, J. 2010. Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?, New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Peerenboom, R. P. 2005. Assessing Human Rights in China: Why the Double Standard, Cornell International Law Journal, 38(1), 71-172.
39. Peters, A. 2011. The Security Council’s Responsibility to Protect, International Organizations Law Review, 8, 15-54.
40. Report of the UN Secretary-General, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, U.N. Doc. A/63/677, ¶ 61 12 January 2009).
41. S.C. Res. 1162, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1162 (Apr. 17, 1998).
42. S.C. Res. 788, U.N. Doc. S/RES/788 (Nov. 19, 1992).
43. Simma, B. 1999. NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, European Journal of International Law, 10, 1-22.
44. Slaughter, A. 2014. A Regional Responsibility to Protect, (Ed.), David Held and Kyle McNally, Lessons from Intervention In The 21st Century: Legality, Legitimacy and Feasibility, Global Policy E-book, available at
45. Sloan, B. 1989. The United Nations Charter as a Constitution, Pace International Law Review, 1(1), 61-126.
46. Stein, Mark. 2004. Unauthorized Humanitarian Intervention, Social Philosophy and Policy, 21(1), 14–38.
47. Teson, F.R. 1988. Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry Into Law And Morality, New York: Transnational Publishers.
48. Teson, F.R. 2006. The Vexing Problem of Authority in Humanitarian Intervention: A Proposal, Wisconsin International Law Journal, 24(3), 761-772.
49. UN. 1948-1949. Yearbook of the United Nations, USA: United Nations Publications.
50. Villani, U. 2002. The Security Council Authorization of Enforcement Action by Regional Organizations, (Ed.) Jochen A. Frowein and Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff
51. Walter, C. 1997. Security Council Control over Regional Action, (Ed.) Jochen A. Frowein and Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
52. Wesley, M. 2005. Toward a Realist Ethics of Intervention, Ethics & International Affairs, 19(2), 55–72.
53. Wheeler, N. 2002. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Winkelmann, I. 1997. Bringing the Security Council into a New Era, (Ed.) Jochen A. Frowein and Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
55. Wouters, J & Ruys, Tom. 2005. Security Council Reform: A New Veto for a New Century?, K.U. Leuven Institute for International Law Working Paper, 78.