3Introduction
Pierre Sané
Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a “form of coercive action,
undertaken by one or more states, involving the use of armed forces in anotherstate without the consent of its authorities and with the purpose of stopping
and preventing widespread suffering or death among its inhabitants” (Adam1

Roberts). The emergence of the doctrine can be seen as one of the defining
features of a new global human rights regime, alongside the establishment of
the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals, a regime inwhich state sovereignty is not absolute anymore. Cornelio Sommaruga,
President of the ICRC (Red Cross and Red Crescent) explains this emergence
as a response to the rising number of internal conflicts and of new actors
autonomous of the state, rise caused by the mounting tensions between the“processes of globalization and the assertion of identity”. These conflicts, heasserts, have changed the contours of humanitarian action in an environment
2

ever more complex.

Armed interventions can take many forms ranging from peace enforcement(e.g. cantonment and demobilisation of fighters, destruction of weapons, setting
up of new armed forces..) coercive protection of civilians (e.g. humanitarian
corridors, no fly zones, safe heavens, protection of aid convoys..) to war fighting
3(e.g. use of force against conflicting parties or spoilers..) (see TG Weiss). It caneven take the form of military bombing, as was the case in Libya. Morecontroversially it can be unilateral (e.g. Kosovo by NATO) or with the explicit
authorisation of the Security Council (Libya). In all cases it boils down to theuse of armed forces in a country without the consent of its authorities in orderto stop or prevent violations of human rights occurring on a massive scale.
The phenomenon of humanitarian interventions has grown in recent years
and especially after the end of the cold war when the preoccupation was rather
the maintenance of blocks and alliances. The literature generally identifies 4

4同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

phases:1-During the cold war with the interventions of India in East Pakistan(today Bangladesh) in 1970, of Vietnam in Cambodia (1979) and of Tanzania in
Uganda in 1978. These interventions led to the collapse of existing regimes andbrought an end to extreme situations of humanitarian disasters. Some haveargued however that even if the outcomes of these interventions led to radical
improvements, in the human right contexts the prime motivation was politicaland strategic, in other words a defence of the national interest.
2-The 1990s saw an increase in the number of interventions as the end of
the cold war gave way to numerous internal conflicts, while the promises of a
new international order made the suffering of the people caught in themdifficult to ignore. These would include among others the no-fly zone inNorthern Iraq (USA-UK) in 1992, the operation Restore Hope in Somalia (USAUN) in 1993, the intervention by NATO in Kosovo in 1994, by the USA/UN in
Haiti in 1994, the delayed operation by the French to stop the genocide in
Rwanda in July 1994. These operations characteristically involved theimprimatur of the Security Council or at least an attempt to secure it.
3-Post 9/11 humanitarian concerns have been overtaken by those raised by
the “war on terror”, and at times humanitarianism has been instrumentalized
by the US and the UK to win over public opinions as in the case of the 2nd Iraqi
war or in Afghanistan.
4-The emergence of the people’s revolutions in the Arab world withpotential widespread implications is opening up new challenges to theinternational community especially after the adoption by the UN General
Assembly in 2005 of the “Declaration on the Responsibility to Protect”. Whatshould the UN do if Arab Governments do not relinquish power gracefully?
What if the armies remain loyal to the rulers and engage in brutal reprisals
involving massive violations of human rights? The UN has responded in Libya
by authorising an intervention but how will it cope should the situation
deteriorate in Syria and in other countries of the region and elsewhere? And
will it manage the long-term ramifications of the prolonged conflicts e.g.
refugee flows?
As to be expected, the meaning of humanitarian intervention and the tasks
associated with it has triggered heated controversies within the UN itself as

Introduction

5

well as among humanitarian practitioners, NGOs and the academic community
and most likely within the military around issues such as legitimacy, moral
dilemmas, legal complexities and also policy incoherencies and lack ofeffectiveness as well as fierce debates on the roles of states, international
institutions and NGOs: When the norms of international society are based onprinciples of sovereignty, non intervention and non use of force, canhumanitarian interventions, especially when undertaken unilaterally, be
legitimate? Who controls who is a victim, who decides who is a repressive
regime, and who decides when an intervention is justified? Is there a basis ininternational law? Indeed can a military intervention be humanitarian? Does it
work? Does it address the underlying political causes of the violence andsuffering? Is it possible to impose human rights or democracy by force fromoutside? What are the intentions and motivations of powerful states? How do
we cope with the inevitable issues of selectivity and self-interest? How do we
get an agreement on the appreciation of what constitute extreme situations ofhuman suffering? But on the other hand, for some, human rights are now
intrinsic values and must prevail over state sovereignty. Haven’t the states
now a moral obligation to intervene when those human rights are seriously
violated? As human beings are we expected to just sit and watch images ofunutterable misery and do nothing? Is national sovereignty a licence to torture
imprison and kill? What is best for the victims? Isn’t the UN after all about “Wethe people”? But at the same time do people in the target country understandthe nature of the operation? Do the people in the intervening states support it?
Kofi Annan the former Secretary General of the UN in his speech at theGeneral Assembly in September 1999 declared that there was a developing
international norm to forcibly protect civilians who were at risk from genocideand mass killings. This norm has now been codified in a new Declaration
adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in the 2005 Summit, seeking tofind the best ways to protect endangered peoples. The Declaration stipulates
that states have primary responsibility to protect their citizens. When they failto do so or terrorize them, the international community has a responsibility toprotect them by reacting, preventing and rebuilding. No criteria for assessing
the gravity of the situation have been included in the Declaration, leaving it to
the Security Council, whose authorisation here is explicitly required, to decide.

6

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

The debates in Asia about humanitarian intervention have not reached theintensity of those in the academic community in the West. As for thegovernments, their positions remain marked by their own historical experiences(colonial occupation, foreign domination) weak status (developing countries) orconstitutional restrictions (e.g. Japan). They remain by and large suspicious ofwestern true motivations, and rest attached to the international principles ofsovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. In any case they reject
any form of unilateral form of intervention, i.e. when not authorized by the
Security Council, and are keen to explore ways and means to bolster humansecurity (security against economic deprivation, an acceptable quality of lifeand guarantee of fundamental human rights) as a way to prevent situations ofgross abuses of human rights. But at the same time, most Asian countries havestated their adherence to international instruments such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, the Geneva
Conventions and more recently the 2005 Declaration on the Responsibility toprotect. ASEAN is discussing ways of more flexible engagement, Japan, South
Korea are participating in peace enforcement missions (Iraq, East Timor) andthe moral question remains unanswered - what to do in the face of genocide ina neighbouring country?
The purpose of the Doshisha international Conferences on Humanitarian
Intervention was to further the debate in Asia on the moral, legal, policy
implications of humanitarian interventions versus inaction. The conferences
took place at the Doshisha University in Kyoto (Japan) in June 2011 and June
2012. Both conferences brought together scholars from the region to present
papers and exchange views in order to clarify the principles and moral
dilemmas of humanitarian intervention, its complexity in terms of legal basis
in international law, its requirements to ensure legitimacy and effectiveness.
The participants explored alternatives to military intervention to ensureinternational cooperation in the prevention of humanitarian disasters andpreservation of the right to life.
This publication is a selection of some of the papers submitted at theconferences. They explore first the potential theoretical foundations ofIntroduction

7

humanitarian interventions (Kardas) followed by an examination of theinternational law and policy as they stand today (Pitts). Decision making at thelevel of the Security Council is then analyzed from the perspective of the
BRICS states i.e. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (Higashi)followed by a discussion on the morality of unilateral intervention (Dobos). In
the second part of the publication, authors from Asian universities present
their views on the issue, recognizing that the rising power of the region invests
it with greater responsibility in world affairs (Kak). However, the lack of
tradition of a “theoretical framework of liberalism” (Shinoda), traditions ofcollective governance of regional issues (Torres-Cortes), colonial experience(Patnaik), suspicions regarding the true motives of western powers (Li) and
uncertain outcomes (Salim) lead authors to plead caution regarding thedevelopment and implementation of the R2P principles.
Professor Kardas starts by acknowledging the growing consensus aroundhumanitarian interventions post the cold war period albeit “as a limited
practice whose life course is stringently bound by the contingencies of theexisting international order”. His paper aims to establish the implications of
this practice and discourse on the dilemma between “the Westphalia worldorder and the promotion of Human rights” and to provide a theoreticalgrounding to these new developments. He argues that the concept of“international society” advanced by the “English School” provides a “via media”
between the competitive normative claims of state sovereignty and universal
human rights and a relevant theoretical framework to explain the emerging
consensus on Humanitarian Intervention: The international order may be“anarchical” (i.e. states not subject to an overall authority) it is nevertheless a“system of states bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one
another and sharing in the working of common institutions”. The goal of thesystem being its preservation, the independence of the states, maintenance ofpeace and common goals of the social life (e.g. human rights), which is leading
to a reappraisal of the norm of non-intervention when it condones grossinjustices and threat to international peace and order and to a redefinition ofsovereignty as responsibility (to protect). This in turn culminating in theemergence of R2P and humanitarian intervention “as an acceptable form of apolicy instrument at the disposal of the international community to end human

8

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

suffering”.
Prof Chip Pitts paper provides a useful clarification of the concept of
Humanitarian Intervention, differentiating it from the various military actions
undertaken recently under the rubric of the “war on terror”. He traces thehistorical foundations of the concept to the legal rules proposed to govern therecourse to war and conduct of war from various early Chinese, Greek, Islamic
and Christian scholars to the construction of the “just war” theory by the Dutch
jurist Hugo Grotius working in the context of the Westphalia arrangement. The
atrocities of World War I and World War II led to the institutionalisation of acollective security arrangement through the League of Nations and then the
United Nations. After 1945, continuing conflicts involving genocides, crimes
against humanity and war crimes have led to calls for more effective legal andnon-legal mechanisms to prevent and/or halt such atrocities through various
forms of humanitarian interventions. In response to these calls, Professor Chips
documents the emergence of the R2P concept through the work of various
commissions and the endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly of2005 which emphasized the primary responsibility of individual states toprotect their populations with the help of the international community, while
granting to the Security Council only the decision to use military intervention
as the last resort should the individual state fail to stop the atrocities. In
applying the principle of R2P to the NATO intervention in Libya, Professor
Chips finds the decision and outcome wanting when analyzed against thecriteria of “just cause”, “right intent”, “victims and regional opinion”, “lastresort”, “proportionality” and “prospects of success”. He concludes that insteadof reinforcing the R2P doctrine, the Libyan operation tends to counsel caution
in humanitarian intervention including consideration of changes ininternational law aimed at strengthening the means of intervention. He
concludes by calling for efforts to seek a clearer understanding of the current
international law pertaining to R2P especially in the different regions of theworld.
Professor Higashi provides some interesting insights into the working anddecision making of the United Nations Security Council by examining thevoting patterns of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, SouthIntroduction

9

Africa) on the resolutions on intervention in Libya and Syria. His research
reveals that even though the 5 countries try to coordinate their stance in the
Security Council, their final vote tend to split IBSA countries (India, Brazil,
South Africa) from Russia and China. The latter 2 countries traditionally
oppose humanitarian intervention due to their suspicions that the real motive
is indeed regime change and because of internal challenge while the IBSA
countries are driven by a greater attachment to human rights and democracy,
legacy of their own historical trajectory of anti colonial struggle and opposition
to military rule or apartheid. Professor Higashi submits that Japan while
sitting on the Security Council should take this differing approach into accountand consult more frequently with IBSA countries in order to act as a bridgewith western countries on decisions regarding humanitarian interventions. He
calls on Japan to support the principle of R2P while joining hands with others
to implement the third pillar of R2P, which is the Responsibility to Rebuild.
Professor Dobos in his paper explores the morality of unilateral
humanitarian interventions not sanctioned by the Security Council. He starts
by establishing that UN authorisation carries “indirect necessity” in that itallows a more impartial examination and validation of the facts on the ground(gravity of the human rights situation and urgency of action) and legitimacy inthe eyes of the citizens of the intervening state. This he argues is likely toenhance the prospects of success of the intervention. However in the face ofegregious human rights violations would a unilateral intervention be morally
wrong even if illegal in international law? Such intervention according to Prof
Dobos would constitute an infringement (not a violation) on the rights of othernations co-contractors of the Charter of the United Nations and its provision on
the exclusive authority vested in the Security Council to decide on
humanitarian intervention but nevertheless would be consistent with theimperative to prevent gross violations of human rights. This latter commitment
according to Professor Dobos takes moral priority over the imperative to honour
international agreements.
For Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, the debate on humanitarian intervention
in Asia must be examined in the context of “the ongoing geo strategic shift ofglobal power and influence from Europe North-Atlantic to Asia” investing Asia

10

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

with greater responsibility in world affairs. In this respect a restructuring of
the United Nations Security Council is “an idea whose time has come” and in it
Asia must have a “commensurate say”. According to Kapil Kak this would
ensure a more representative and holistic consideration of key issues andreflect a concept of Humanitarian intervention that is “more universal, nonwestern-centric, and farthest removed from what is termed the colonial logic of
the “white man’s burden”.
Going beyond the strictly defined humanitarian intervention, Professor
Shinoda explores the reasons why foreign interventions whether military or
judicial are not embraced by Asian countries:” It is difficult to find any
indication of humanitarian intervention pursued by Asian countries anywherein the world. And in most cases Asian countries are unwilling to accept large
size peace keeping operations.” This trend also applies to civilian oriented
political and judiciary operations in conflict ridden areas (i.e. participation in
the International Criminal Court). This attitude according to Professor Shinoda
stems from the lack of the tradition of the “theoretical framework of liberalismin Asia”. Revolutions in Europe and in America often supported by foreigninterventions derived their legitimacy from the “supreme power of the people”
and their right to the “appeal to heaven”, namely the “right to resistance andrevolution in case of abuse of governmental power” (John Locke). Which in turn
could justify some form of outside intervention to help protect civilians. By
contrast, Prof Shinoda asserts that Asian revolutions were not revolutions
based on liberal values: “The political aspirations are for state-led economies asa source of political order.” Furthermore, at the geopolitical level the end of thecold war did not have in Asia the negative impact witnessed in Africa andEurope, thus keeping the pregnance of humanitarian intervention at bay.
In her paper, Attorney Torres Cortes examines the concept of sovereignty
vis a vis the ASEAN evolving construction of Human rights through exploring
both the prospects and limits of humanitarian intervention within the AICHR
framework. Assessing the Terms of Reference of the Commission against therequirements of humanitarian intervention (just cause, last resort,
proportionality, and positive outcome), Torres Cortes stipulates that the
principles of the AICHR would rule out intervention due to the rule ofIntroduction

11

consensus in deciding on the existence of a humanitarian emergency and on
military action. However the author argues that presenting “the glass half
empty presents only one side of the coin.” The adoption of an “evolutionary
approach” to the development of the human rights agenda indicates thatchange is possible. First the Charter mandates ASEAN to uphold international
human rights standards as prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and subsequent human rights instruments, including the international
humanitarian law. Second, principles of sovereignty and non interference have
evolved in the region as exemplified by the reactions of ASEAN member statesto the “saffron revolution” in Myanmar and with the moves to find alternatives
to “constructive engagement” through concepts such as “constructive
intervention” (Malaysia), “flexible engagement” (Thailand) and the adoption of“enhanced interaction”. Ultimately Attorney Torres-Cortes asserts that thedirection of change will depend on how governments, civil society and academe
will rise to the challenge of utilizing the opportunities presented by the AICHR
and ASEAN.
Professor Patnaik emphasizes that South Asia despite its rich ancient
cultural and historical common traditions has not developed a common
approach to regional or international issues. Instead, the colonial experience,
the upheavals of the decolonization process, the religious and ethnic factors andindividual states’ relations with outside powers have impacted on each state
perspectives on international law including issues of use of force andhumanitarian intervention. All states in the region (India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) share in a common attachment to the principle ofsovereignty and non interference and to the need to exercise caution on thedevelopment of the concept of R2P. Analyzing the statements made by thecountries of the region in the United Nations debates on R2P, Professor
Patnaik noted that India stresses the need to take military action on a “case bycase basis” in cooperation with relevant regional organizations and as a lastresort. Pakistan calls for greater attention to be paid to preventive measures toavoid future international conflicts by addressing root causes such as
underdevelopment and poverty. Sri Lanka cautions against the risks of a
selective application of the R2P and highlighted the need for regional initiatives
focusing on the “history, culture, and value systems of the region”, while

12

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

Bangladesh insists on the primary responsibility of the individual state. In
other words while states in the region agree with the principle of the need toprotect human rights they are wary of the modalities by which protection ought
to be triggered conditioned and regulated in order to eventually benefit people.
As to Professor Bojun Li, he squarely rejects the concept of humanitarian
intervention which he qualifies as being” conceptually obscure and legallycontroversial”. He argues that it is illegal in the sense that it is not supported
by any international treaty including the United Nations Charter or customaryinternational law; it is illegitimate due to the selfish motives of the interveners
leading to manipulations of the facts on the ground of misuse and pretext for
regime change. Furthermore, experience has shown the limits of the use offoreign military means in addressing local conflicts and needs forreconstruction. Professor Li concludes by asserting that forcible intervention inhumanitarian crises is more likely to be a short term palliative that does little
to address the underlying political causes of the violence and suffering.
Finally Iyas Salim, PhD candidate at Doshisha University, focusing on thecurrent conflict in Syria, contends that western military intervention is not an
option in that it could spark a civil war. He advocates the implementation of
the traditional Islamic principle of “Hilfal Fidul or Alliance of Fidul” whereby
through the unity of the opposition, outreach to all segments of the Syrian
people including the Alwite minority and the support of a coalition of Arabcountries and Turkey, atrocities by the regime could be stopped. Traditionallythe term Hilfal Fidul refers to the “alliance or coalition of certain tribes andsocial representation in stopping crimes and establishing justice”.
This collection of essays is the first of its kind that tries to engage scholars
from Asia in a debate on Humanitarian Interventions. As it shows, further
work is required in terms of clarification of the concept in order to ensure thatscholars can provide policy makers with useful inputs to feed into theinternational debates. The initiative of Doshisha University in this regard iswelcome and should be encouraged.

Introduction

REFERENCES
1 Adam Roberts, The United Nations Security Council and War, Oxford University Press 2010
2 Cornelio Samarruga, CICR, Le Coeur et la Raison, Lausanne 1998
3 T.G.Weiss, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations, 200813