4 Opposition no consistent state practice to give rise to a customary

4 opposition no consistent state practice to give

This preview shows page 71 - 72 out of 80 pages.

4. Opposition - no consistent state practice to give rise to a customary international law allowing humanitarian intervention. China, Russia and other has have consistently rejected. 2. Examples: 1. Iraq 1991-92 - post-Gulf War One, US, UK and France set up safe zones in North Iraq to protect Kurds from persecution - there was no express authorisation to act by the UNSC. i. Res 688 - UK denied that the UNSC resolution condemning the acts of the Iraqi government were a justification to intervene and did not claim that it was merely enforcing the provisions of the Resolution which demanded Iraq to stop its actions. ii. International Reaction - there was no express prohibition, rejection or condemnation of the actions however - largely recognised as a good and essential move to protect life. iii. Evolution of Law? - can be seen as the evolution of the UK's position from 1986, or could just be an extreme case as the exception to the rule? 2. Kosovo 1999 - Statements by Permanent Members at 3988th UNSC Meeting in response to the actions of NATO forces in intervening in Kosovo on grounds of humanitarian protection against further war crimes and acts of genocide: i. China & Russia - vetoed any UN intervention and condemned NATO acts of armed intervention as a violation of international law. ii. US/UK/France - seriousness of situation in Kosovo, including violations of international law, cannot simply be ignored. iii. ICJ Position - ICJ ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to proceed to the merits on the case brought by Yugoslavia against the UK - Legality of Use of Force (Serbia & Montenegro v UK) 3. Syria 2013 - UK set out its position in 2013 regarding the civil war in Syria asserting the possible right to unilateral intervention under certain circumstances: i. Justification - failure of UNSC to come to consensus regarding crisis, UK is permitted at international law to unilaterally intervene given the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe. ii. Criteria for Intervention - there are 3 essential criteria for such intervention: i. Convincing Evidence - convincing, objective evidence generally accepted by international community of extreme humanitarian distress. ii. No Alternative - objectively clear there is no practicable alternative to use of force to save lives. iii. Necessary and Proportionate - any use of force must be both necessary and proportionate in the achievement of humanitarian goals. 3. Conditions on Exercise - proposed UK Guidelines in Humanitarian Intervention 2002 1. Failure of Prevention - any intervention must be seen as an admission of a failure of prevention. 2. Last Resort - use of armed force should be a last resort after exhaustion of other possible remedies. 3. Immediately Responsibility with Intervened State - immediate responsibility to take action against a human rights violation rests with the state in which the violation occurs. Only when that state is unwilling or unable to take action may other states intervene.
Image of page 71
Image of page 72

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture