On the one hand, we have a basic rule of international law incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations that the use of force in international relations is prohibited unless authorised by the Security Council or in self-defence. On the other 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.
Any intervention mirrors a failure of prevention.
As a last resort the international community must have the ability to act in the face of organised 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 authorisation in extreme cases, but to do so without jeopardising the international legal order. Mr. President, We must ensure that the Security Council functions as efficiently as possible. If not, the influence of the Council will be diminished. The permanent members of the Security Council should apply the right of veto only in matters of vital importance.