The Pretext of International Humanitarian Intervention and Dominance Over States: The Dilemma of Intervention and State Sovereignty (2-3)

Dr. Ahmed Abdel-Baqi

The nature of conflicts in the world changed after the Cold War, with an increase in internal conflicts and non-international wars. This shift created disturbances manifested in political instability and security vacuums in several countries of the former Eastern Bloc, especially in Eastern Europe, parts of Central Asia, and some African countries. As a result of these disturbances, civilians were greatly affected, leading to instances of ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, hunger, and other crises. The West exploited these conditions and employed new mechanisms to manage post-Cold War conflicts, promoting the principle of international humanitarian intervention under the pretext of protecting human rights and providing humanitarian aid.

However, this intervention was politically interpreted, driven entirely by the interests of Western countries, led by the United States. It became a pretext for intervening in the internal affairs of states, infringing on their sovereignty, and pressuring governments to achieve political and economic gains for the benefit of the West and America. International humanitarian intervention shifted from its claim of serving humanity and spreading concepts of peace and democratic values to becoming tools of pressure and coercion that violate and diminish state sovereignty.

International Humanitarian Intervention and Its Impact on State Sovereignty

According to the practical dictionary of humanitarian law, the concept of “intervention” in international law means “interference.” When one state intervenes in the internal affairs of another, this is considered a violation of the latter’s sovereignty, despite the United Nations Charter (Article 2-7) affirming the principle of non-intervention, which states that “no state has the right to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Furthermore, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter mandates that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The International Court of Justice also prohibited both direct and indirect forms of intervention, forbidding direct force against another state or the support of armed groups or rebels within another country to overthrow its political system.

The 1970 United Nations Declaration also prohibited all forms of intervention in any state’s internal and external affairs, considering any political, economic, or cultural intervention to be contrary to international law. The Declaration emphasised that every state has the inalienable right to choose the system that suits it without external interference. This principle is also upheld by regional organisations such as the Arab League, the African Union, and the Organization of American States, as well as international legal bodies and precedents in international legal jurisprudence.

International humanitarian intervention (as discussed in the first article) has raised numerous theoretical and practical issues in the field of international political and legal studies. It directly affects the concept of state sovereignty, which is one of the key pillars of the international system and protects it from chaos. This is primarily embodied in the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. Consequently, theoretical and legal positions have become divided between those supporting and those opposing the principle of humanitarian intervention.

Supporters of the humanitarian intervention theory argue for the necessity of placing the right to life and physical safety as primary rights that justify humanitarian intervention in the internal affairs of states that violate them. They base this on the recognition of these rights by international conventions and their protection in both peace and war. On the other hand, those opposed to humanitarian intervention stress the importance of balancing the right to humanitarian intervention with other fundamental principles established in international law, which prohibit the use of force in international relations, emphasise non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, and uphold the principle of peaceful dispute resolution, as well as respect for a state’s territorial integrity and political independence.

It must also be noted that the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states was established to protect the independence of weaker states from the interventions and pressures of more powerful ones. This principle is the foundation of international relations and the framework governing relations between states. Moreover, this principle has no relation to humanitarian relief activities carried out by organisations whose work is guided by neutrality and humanity. Therefore, the right to intervene under the pretext of human rights is an unconventional behaviour, its proclaimed objectives shrouded in humanitarian, security, and environmental slogans. These, in reality, conceal the mechanisms of international conflict management, whose actual purpose is to serve the political, economic, and military interests of major powers.

America, the West, and Exploiting the Security Council to Undermine State Sovereignty

Although the United Nations charters affirm the principle of state sovereignty, the UN Charter does make exceptions for certain types of interventions, such as those authorised by the Security Council under Article 42 of Chapter 7 (compulsory intervention without the consent of the state in question). Similarly, in the case of self-defence, as outlined in Article 51 of the Charter. However, sovereignty has been negatively impacted by liberal ideologies that have exploited their military, economic, and political influence within the UN and especially the Security Council. Some major powers have used the principle of protecting human rights and minorities as a pretext to intervene in other states, as seen in Russia’s intervention in Abkhazia, Russian-American interventions in Syria, Serbian and Croatian interventions in Kosovo, and American interventions in Somalia, Iraq, and Kosovo, as well as Britain’s intervention in Sierra Leone.

In line with their national interests, the five major powers have monopolised decisions within the Security Council through the use of the veto, undermining the sovereignty of states and influencing the political affairs of developing nations. We have witnessed how many UN resolutions have been influenced by veto power on issues involving countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (especially Gaza), Sudan, and several African countries. Security Council decisions regarding developing nations are often subject to bargaining and concessions among the five permanent members (the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia) according to their respective interests.

One of the mechanisms major powers use to influence Security Council decisions is the concept of the “penholder” (discussions and viewpoints related to this concept began in 2004, and its legal definition became established among the UN and its staff by 2018). Three countries— the United States, Britain, and France— dominate its use. Major powers have also taken advantage of international and regional humanitarian aid organisations as vehicles to pursue their national interests from a pragmatic perspective (i.e., nations seeking their interests wherever they may be found, regardless of moral considerations if they conflict with these goals). This is because these countries are the primary financial supporters of the humanitarian response carried out by these organisations, which makes these organisations susceptible to pressure from donor states if their work conflicts with the objectives of the donor nations.

Standards of State Sovereignty and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

Based on the previously mentioned points, it can be said that the right of states to non-intervention in their internal affairs, whether directly or indirectly, has, in light of the new changes in the post-Cold War international system, ceased to be a sacred right to absolute sovereignty at both the internal and external levels. Instead, the right to exercise sovereignty on these levels has become subject to what is known as the principle of international responsibility and to the extent to which these states contribute to achieving international peace and security, according to the perspective of the major powers in the Security Council and the United Nations. These institutions are structured around incentivising the victors of World War II rather than creating a win-win situation for all.

The principle of humanitarian intervention has been used as a pretext for undermining state sovereignty, deviating from its humanitarian dimension, and becoming dominated by the major powers. Thus, contemporary international law no longer favours the idea of humanitarian intervention, as it essentially attempts to revive the old colonial trend that allowed for international intervention under the guise of humanitarian causes.

The true aim of such interventions is to impose colonial control over developing nations, particularly African states, which have not been allowed to benefit from the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs. Furthermore, the right to intervene does not take into account the radical transformations that international law has undergone since the end of World War II, particularly the decolonisation process and the end of the division of Western powers into spheres of influence—a practice that has been renewed after the Cold War through new mechanisms such as what is now known as humanitarian international intervention.