International Military Humanitarian Intervention as a Solution for International Conflict Management

摘要

Scholarly debates for and against military humanitarian intervention have raged on. For non-interventionists, nothing could justify unilateral or multilateral interventions against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a state. For interventionists, states should not hold unto their sovereignty and grossly abuse the rights of their populations while the international community just watches. By looking at the arguments of both sides, this paper is a sweeping examination of the general concept of International Military Humanitarian Intervention as a last-resort solution for International Conflict Management. It starts with a historical overview of the humanitarian intervention concept, looking at the cause célèbre surrounding the legality of the Use of Force and other concerns surrounding humanitarian intervention. It further examines the concept of Responsibility to Protect, as a contemporary re-definition of humanitarian intervention and a gap bridger between sovereignty & military humanitarian intervention. While military intervention is the last-resort solution under the Responsibility to Protect, the latter provides an opportunity for the use of other diplomatic tools in conflict management. This paper also examines some successful and failed state case studies where military humanitarian intervention was deployed to resolve conflicts, ensure peace and alleviate mass sufferings. In addition, the paper analyses the challenges and criticisms of military humanitarian intervention. Finally, the paper agrees that military humanitarian intervention constitutes a last-resort solution for conflict management when it is done under the right authority of the UN Security Council, with the right intention, proportionality of force size and with reasonable prospects of success. This is to save human populations from gross mass atrocities when states have failed to do so. Discussions are also on other related issues that may support or challenge military humanitarian interventions such as: state sovereignty, the selectivity problem, political realism, and post-conflict peace building after interventions.