UN General Assembly
2000

hand, many countries find that there is a political and moral obligation to act in the face of atrocities causing large-scale human suffering within another State. There is no clear-cut solution to this dilemma. But surely no legal principle, including sovereignty, can be used as a shield to commit crimes against humanity and other serious violations of human rights. The Security Council has a moral obligation to act on behalf of the international community. We must remember that the United Nations was founded, in the words of the Charter, in order to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights. Any intervention reflects a failure of prevention. As a last resort, the international community must have the ability to act in the face of organized mass murder or ethnic-cleansing, even if the Security Council is blocked. The challenge is to keep open the option of humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization in extreme cases, but to do so without jeopardizing the international legal order. We must ensure that the Security Council functions as effectively as possible. If not, the