From: hrcoord@igc.apc.org (Human Rights Coordinator)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human
Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO INTERVENE SP
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1476701004:000:3658
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!hrcoord    Jan 21 08:34:00 1993


From: Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord>
Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO INTERVENE SP

/* Written 12:11 am  Jan 21, 1993 by newsdesk@igc.apc.org in igc:ips.englibrary */
Copyright Inter Press Service 1993, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Title: HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO INTERVENE SPARKS DEBATE


an inter press service feature

by carlos roverssi

san jose, jan 17 (ips) -- the right of other nations to intervene
in a country accused of human rights violations could be one of
the major points of contention at the regional conference on
human rights, which opened monday in san jose, costa rica.

while many nations and diplomats recognize the right to
intervene for humanitarian reasons, others cite the principle of
non-intervention as the basic ground for relations between
countries.

the controversial issue has united smaller nations and ancient
political rivals who fear that international intervention
provides the world's most powerful nations with both the
justification and means of controlling stategic situations.

for others, interventions are an integral part of the process
of globalisation, which will lead to new concepts of sovereignty
and international interdependence.

political scientist and lawyer jorge rhenan segura told ips
intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations must be
considered viable when there are flagrant violations of human
rights.

according to segura, intervention is also justified in
situations that endanger world peace or the survival of a nation.

segura said that while humantarian intervention is not defined
in the united nations charter, the charter does establish that a
persistent violation of human rights is a threat to world peace
and security.

''the problem is that it (intervention) has been defined
neither as a right or a duty, and therefore has been interpreted
in a variety of manners, mixing legal and political concerns,''
segura said.

however, smaller and non-aligned nations continue to support
the principle of non-intehbention, saying ''no country may use
its power to dictate its concepts of democracy and human rights,
or to impose conditions upon other nations.''

non-aligned nations fear the issue becomes even more
complicated and dangerous when left to the united nations
security council, which is made up of five powerful permanent
members (the united states, britain, france, china and russia),
whose interests could guide international actions.
(more/ips)
----


human rights: right (2)

opponents question the use of international interventions: why
intervene in iraq and somalia, but not in bosnia-herzegovina and
haiti?

according to costa rica's former minister of foreign
relations, fernando volio, the principle of non-intervention must
continue to be followed by civilized societies.

''what remains to be debated is the right of all nations to
use solidarity to protect people and nations, around the world,
from the systematic violation of their rights,'' volio added.

volio said it was the obligation of the international
community to protect the rights of other nations as established
in the united nations charter and practiced during the
de-colonialisation of africa and asia.

''non-intervention must continue being a basic international
law and the protection of human rights must not overrule this
law,'' volvio added.

in the shadow of ongoing actions in iraq and somalia, the
issue of international interventions could be one of the more
contested points in final document of the san jose regional
conference on human rights. (end/ips/trd/so/cr/ds/eli/93)
----