Agenda

Fourth Committee

Armed Intervention Outside UN Auspices

by
Adam Torgerson

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that, “The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasisovereign that can be identified.” Unfortunately, the UN has been perceived as such an unidentifiable “brooding omnipresence” since its lack of an effective response to atrocities in Kosovo and Rwanda. All of the world’s treaties, rules, norms and condemnation may not be enough to deal with some conflicts. Peace enforcement may be a necessity in some situations. What should be done when the UN is unable or unwilling to act in a humanitarian emergency? Are other organizations or nations then justified in taking action outside of UN auspices?

Most often, the justification used by organizations acting outside of UN auspices is that the Security Council can no longer function to address some of the grossest human rights violations, such as those that occurred in the Kosovo conflict or in Rwanda and Burundi. Evolving perspectives on human rights call the UN to action; the veto power of the Security Council often prevents necessary action from being taken.

Perhaps Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement of September 20, 1999 is indicative of an evolving world perspective on sovereignty and human rights. He said, "If the new commitment to intervention in the face of extreme suffering is to retain the support of the world’s peoples, it must be...fairly and consistently applied, irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after all, is indivisible." Global emphasis, it seems, is slowly shifting from the importance of national sovereignty to ensuring and protecting human rights.

The United Nations is not particularly well adapted to take military action to prevent egregious human rights violations or to eliminate some threats to international peace and security, such as the proliferation of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, largely because of the ability of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council to block a resolution with the veto power. Other intergovernmental organizations (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO), individual nations, or even non-governmental or ad hoc organizations are left with the choice of allowing gross human rights violations and threats to international security to thrive or to pursue action on their own. When all courses of diplomacy fail, the ultimate choice is whether to take military action outside of UN auspices or to allow the human rights violations or threats to international peace and security to continue.

The Security Council was originally intended to deal with threats to international peace and security. One of the current problems with the Security Council is its inability to act promptly, if at all. The Charter intended for the body to react quickly to whatever threats may arise. Article 24, which outlines the functions and powers of the Security Council, begins, “In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations...” Criticism of the UN is often based on its ineffectiveness, especially in dealing with some severe human rights violations. This ineffectiveness is a perfect pretext for other organizations to take matters into their own hands. The more that other organizations and nations, namely NATO and the United States, bypass the Security Council the less influence that body can exert. The Secretary-General noted the current state of the Security Council by saying, ‘[M]ore recently, there has been a regrettable tendency for the Security Council not to be involved in efforts to maintain international peace and security.”

The Charter envisioned a stronger role for the Security Council, but it also allowed for the formation of regional organizations for the purposes of self defense, as stated in Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. (UN Charter, Article 51)

A point of contention in the United Nations is the use of armed forces by NATO in the name of humanitarian intervention. No "armed attack" has occurred per the Charter, nor are the military actions taken by NATO in Kosovo, for example, self-defense. The Charter does not directly address the relatively new concept of humanitarian intervention.

How does the United Nations reconcile its inability to act and conflict with nations or regional organizations over control of international military actions and interventions? Secretary-General Annan said, “A new, more broadly defined, more widely conceived definition of national interest in the new century would, I am convinced, induce States to find far-greater unity in the pursuit of such basic Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human rights and the rule of law.” Is broadening the definition of national interest the answer? Is the protection of human rights in India, for example, in the national interest of the United States? The answer depends on one’s view of the tension between national sovereignty and human rights.

Some feel that sovereignty should be inviolate. In response to Annan’s statement about the primacy of human rights irrespective of nation or region, Algerian President Abdelaziz Boutelika said, “sovereignty is our final defense against the rules of an unequal world.” Additionally, he stated,

We do not deny the right of public opinion in the Northern Hemisphere to denounce breaches of human rights where they exist. And we do not deny that the United Nations has the right and duty to help suffering humanity...[But] we firmly believe that interference in internal affairs can only take place with the consent of the state in question.

Likewise, former South African President Nelson Mandela "accused the United Kingdom and the United States of promoting international chaos by ignoring other countries and acting as 'policemen of the world'." (Intervention, UN Affairs)

The Security Council is at the epicenter of the debate about the necessity for military action outside of UN auspices. Because it has been criticized much in recent years for its seeming inability to act, the processes of the Council have been the subject of much examination. Secretary-General Annan noted the lack of action by the Security Council recently: “[T]here has been a regrettable tendency for the Security Council not to be involved in efforts to maintain international peace and security.” The main hindrance lies in the veto power. Any one of the permanent members can prevent the United Nations from taking action. Former Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali spoke in 1996 about the necessity for reform of the Security Council, stating, “Security Council reform is a critical issue of our time. It must be dealt with seriously, carefully and responsibly. It can be at the heart of a United Nations transformed into a truly effective system for the maintenance of international peace and security, now and in the future.” While Security Council reform is a topic unto itself, it should be understood that Security Council problems can be used as a justification for organizations outside of the UN to take action without UN approval.

Humanitarian disaster often is related to or follows other political/military conflict. Recently, many delegates were invited to speak to the Security Council regarding its support of humanitarian aid. The vast majority of speakers emphasized the importance of preventing or curtailing situations that will lead to humanitarian problems. The French Representative, Alain Dejammet, put forth the majority opinion very clearly:

Humanitarian action was not a substitute for political action and addressing the causes of crises. While relieving the suffering of civilians was the task of United Nations agencies, it was not enough and should not absolve the Council of its responsibilities to deal with crises. The use of force was sometimes required to put an end to large-scale violations that threatened international peace and security. That had been the case in Kosovo. The Council could only exercise the responsibility assigned to it by the Charter.

Should organizations that take action in lieu of the Security Council be punished? An examination of the Charter shows that Article 24 seems to prohibit such intervention, humanitarian or otherwise, when the member nations themselves are not threatened. Article 24 states:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political interdependence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 24 was meant to be all encompassing. It would seem then that the actions of NATO in intervening in Kosovo, for example, would be illegal as per the UN Charter. Additionally, Article 53 says:

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement under its authority. But no enforcement shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council... (Charter, Article 54)

The Charter does not allow for military action to be taken by any nation, coalition of nations, or organization unless acting in self-defense. Humanitarian intervention is, therefore, strictly speaking, not allowed without Security Council approval. If the Security Council is unwilling or unable to act, member nations are left with the choice of allowing potential threats to international peace and security, or humanitarian problems, to continue, or they have the choice of putting aside the Charter and risking world condemnation to take action.

Questions for further consideration: