MUNQSMUN 2012

General Assembly
Humanitarian Intervention with respect to R2P

LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

As members of the Executive Board of the United Nations General Assembly (DISEC), it gives us great pleasure to welcome all delegates to MUNQSMUN12. I, Shivish Soni, will be presiding over the committee as Chairperson along with Amlan Panda as the Vice-Chairperson. As the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations, the General Assembly acts as a forum where all 193 member nations of the UN can express their views on an International stage. It is one of the five principal organs of the UN and the only one in which all member nations have equal representation. Thus, it serves as embodiment of one of the major founding principles of the UN- Equality among nations ,a principle that delegates are expected to uphold by aiming to resolve agenda specific grievances of the international community at MUNQSMUN12. This years General Assembly agenda i.e. Humanitarian Intervention with respect to R2P is heavily research oriented. Conducive debate on these agendas is an eventuality that will only come to pass if delegates have researched thoroughly and are aware of the questions that they need to answer in their resolutions. Being aware of the daunting task that this might seem to most delegates, we have made an attempt at preparing a comprehensive, yet unintimidating background guide that we hope shall serve to guide you through your research. Before you go ahead and study this guide, please keep in mind that this is merely to facilitate your research and not the entire research in itself. The background guide will have a basic outline of the agenda to help your understanding and express our expectations from you as a delegate. We hope to see confident leaders, skilled orators and well- researched delegates coming together to form an amalgam of fruitful discussions. Remember to speak up, and please do enjoy yourselves while what we hope shall be an enriching learning experience lasts.

Do feel free to contact the executive board in case of any doubts or discrepancies. All the Best!

Shivish Soni

Chairperson

Amlan Panda Vice-Chairperson

NOTE: Nothing contained in this background guide can be used as substantial proof/evidence in committee; this document is solely for research purposes.

INTRODUCTION
The objective of humanitarian intervention is to prevent mass violation of human rights and human dignity. It has remained a compelling issue in international affairs because of its controversial character. Although sovereignty has formed the basis of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia, events in the 1990s raised the impetus of the international community to place the protection of civilians before state autonomy. However, given the complexity of international law and international relations, the threshold for triggering interventions continues to be debated.

Definition
Humanitarian intervention is the threat or use of force by a state or an international body aimed at preventing or ending state-sanctioned violations of human rights1. Humanitarian intervention is conducted without the permission of the state where mass violation of human rights has occurred.

Statement of the problem

Incidents of overt violation of humanitarian law can be seen around the globe. Disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians are the primary subject of discussion. For instance, the Israeli army was accused of killing over 800 civilians up to August 1st, 2006 in Lebanon during Lebanese-Israeli Lebanese conflict is normally used as a case study for humanitarian intervention since it is more an interstate conflict rather than intrastate conflict, which started in July, 20062.The devastating and gruesome violation of humanitarian law in Rwanda shocked the international world. Moreover, starting on 6 April 1994, after the death the presidents of Burundi and Rwanda, massacre of two ethnic tribes, Tutsi and Hutus, took place in Rwanda, which resulted in the death of 1 million people and
1 2

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/2003269355.pdf http://www.lebanonwire.com/0608MLN/NDH-ALEF_IHL%20violations.pdf

raping of 250,000women3.These cases have caught the attention of the international society, especially the UN. However, there are setbacks that obstruct the UN to take decisive actions.

National Sovereignty
National sovereignty refers to the absolute application of jurisdiction by the state government within the confines of its border. Other actors have narrowly construed or limited legitimacy to intervene4. Furthermore, according to UN Charter Article II, Chapter VII which is often regarded as embodiment of sovereignty as rights. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nation to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state5. The UN Charter also associated state sovereignty to state responsibility. As stressed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2006, The Charter protects the sovereignty of people. It was never meant as a license for governments to tremble on human rights and human dignity6. Sovereignty implies responsibility, not just power. In other words, state government should have universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. But in accordance with UN Charter VII, national sovereignty can be set aside if it stands in the way of the overriding duty of the Security Council to preserve international peace. Another important aspect is that international law eventually prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of other states. The use of force is only permissible in self-defence or for enforcement measures. The extended interest regarding human rights in the international law has on many accounts resulted in the violation of territorial integrity, which means that the legality of humanitarian intervention is often called into question. Now the international body faces a dilemma. Humanitarian Intervention is mandated on behalf of dignity for all human kind. However, many argue that humanitarian intervention is violation of territorial integrity. The use of force on

3 4

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/ http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/pdf/workshop06sp/jentleson.pdf 5 United Nations Charter Art. 2 (7) 6 http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/pdf/workshop06sp/jentleson.pdf

other states clearly goes against international law. These dilemmas manifestly traverse the international body from preserving regional peace efficiently.

Past UN Action
Provision on the Use of Force by the United Nations
Before analyzing the provision on the Use of Force by the United Nations, we have to notice that whatever actions taken by the UN is bound by the UN Charter. Unfortunately, humanitarian issues within the context of the UN charter are till, to this day, accorded secondary status to the provisions regarding peace and security. And that UN Charter Article 2(7) provides that nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters, which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. However there is an important exception contained in UN chapter Article 2(7) is that the UN can intervene in a states domestic affairs when pursuing enforcement measures under UN Charter VII. But it is up to the Security Council to decide what constitutes threat to the peace, breach of the peace or acts of aggression. The problem, however derives from the lack of what defines threat to the peace, breach of the peace or acts of aggression7. Many factors can be taken in but would still been deemed controversial.

2005 World Summit Outcome

The United Nation World Summit for September 2005 proposed several decisive measures regarding human right issues. The outcomes are in brief as follows:11 (a) Peace building, peace keeping and peace making Regarding peacekeeping operation in conflict zone, the 2005 world summit outcome resulted in the request for more standing political capacity for UN. The Secretariat General has strengthened capacity of mediation and control. It also proposed that the established of so called a Peace building Commission backed by supporting fund will effectively transform a country from war to peace.
7

Murphy, Sean D.(1996) The United Nations in an Evolving World Order, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania press, 1996. Pg. 75-82

(b) Responsibility to Protect When peaceful means of a nations government fails to put a halt to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass violation or has been proven inadequate, the UN Security Council has the right to collectively take action. (c) Human rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law Decisive act must be taken to strengthen the UN human right machinery and to increase related funding. The 2005 World Summit also heavily favours for the idea of the foundation of Human Rights Council over the coming years. In addition to emphasizing the essentiality of a human right institution, the World Summit also reaffirmed democracy as a universal value.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT CORE PRINCIPLES

(1) Basic Principles8 A. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. B. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect. (2) Foundations The foundations of the responsibility to protect, as a guiding principle for the international community of states, lie in: A. obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty;

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf

B. the responsibility of the Security Council, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security;

C. specific legal obligations under human rights and human protection declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law; D. The developing practice of states, regional organizations and the Security Council itself. (3) Elements The responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities: A. The responsibility to prevent: to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk. B. The responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution, and in extreme cases military intervention. C. The responsibility to rebuild: to provide, particularly after a military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert. (4) Priorities A. Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect: prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it. B. The exercise of the responsibility to both prevent and react should always involve less intrusive and coercive measures being considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied

Use of Force
The international community recognizes 6 criteria as to when a military intervention would be justifiable under some sort: right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects.

Right Authority
The most legitimate body to authorize military intervention is the United Nations Security Council. The Authorization from a legitimate authority like the United Nations Security Council is a must. A formal request should be laid down in the Security Council by those who are seeking for intervention, or have the council initiate such actions on its own, or have the UN Secretary General raise such issue under the mandated power under Article 99 of the United Nations Charter. However, should the Council reject a proposal or fail to take up a situation within a reasonable amount of time the General Assembly can consider the matter during an Emergency Special Session under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure or regional and sub-regional bodies can act within their geographic jurisdiction, subject to their approval from the United Nations Security Council. Should the Security Council fail to act on the matter and does not carry out its duty, the concerned states can look at alternatives to meet the gravity of the situation they face.

Just Cause Threshold

In order for the military intervention to be warranted, irreparable and serious harm must be done to people or is at least likely to occur to them. Before which two main aspects must be justified for the same. Large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or large scale 'ethnic cleansing', actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.

Right Intention
Every Action in this world has a motive behind it or at least should. Similarly there might be many motives or intentions behind intervention or strictly speaking the intervening states, but the primary motive is supposed to be to halt human suffering of all or any forms. The right intention is justified or better assured with multilateral operations, which is supported by the local or regional people and the victims concerned.

Last Resort
When every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored and has been unsuccessful, that is when military intervention can be justified. Even believing on reasonable grounds that other actions would not have worked is a reason enough for intervention.

Proportional Means
The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective.

Reasonable Prospects
There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction.

ICISS also concluded that the most appropriate body to authorize such military intervention is the Security Council and the most important task of the Security Council is to make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated. The United Nations Security Council has an obligation to intervene in situations that threaten international peace and security, in order to take appropriate actions and save human lives.

Legal Basis of R2P

While R2P is not itself, a legally binding framework, as a principle R2P is grounded in existing international law. States responsibilities when faced with the crime of genocide are enumerated in the Genocide Convention which holds States responsible to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. States obligations to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, and their responsibilities under IHL are enumerated in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. These obligations are relevant to the war crimes responsibilities under R2P. Crimes against humanity, although as well recognized international crime and defined at length in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, does not have its own convention or treaty defining States responsibilities with regard to crimes against humanity although elements of the crime such as torture and slavery do have their own conventions.

Who has what Responsibility under the R2P?

The primary duty bearers under R2P are States. In the first instance States have a responsibility to protect populations under their jurisdiction and control. States also have a responsibility to other States to assist them to fulfil their responsibility to protect their populations. The Secretary General notes that this may be done in four ways: Encouraging States to meet their responsibilities under pillar one; helping them to exercise this responsibility; helping them to build their capacity to protect; and Assisting States under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

In Practice
The first time the Security Council made official reference to the responsibility to protect was in April 2006, in resolution 1674 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Security Council referred to that resolution in August 2006, when passing resolution 1706 authorizing the deployment of UN peacekeeping troops to Darfur, Sudan. Recently, the responsibility to protect featured prominently in a number of resolutions adopted by the Security Council. 1. Libya (2011)

Following widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population by the regime in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (short: Libya), the UN Security Council, on 26 February 2011, unanimously adopted resolution 1970, making explicit reference to the responsibility to protect. Deploring what it called "the gross and systematic violation of human rights" in strife-torn Libya, the Security Council demanded an end to the violence, "recalling the Libyan authorities responsibility to protect its population," and imposed a series of international sanctions. The Council also decided to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. 2. Cte dIvoire (2011)

In response to the escalating, post-election violence against the population of Cte dIvoire in late 2010 and early 2011, the UN Security Council, on 30 March 2011, unanimously adopted resolution 1975 condemning the gross human rights violations committed by supporters of both ex-President Laurent Gbagbo and President Ouattara. The resolution cited "the primary responsibility of each State to protect civilians," called for the immediate transfer of power to President Ouattara, and reaffirmed that the UN Operation in Cte dIvoire (UNOCI) could use "all necessary means to protect life and property." 3. Yemen (2011)

On 21 October 2011, resolution 2014 condemned human rights violations by the Yemeni authorities and encouraged an inclusive Yemeni-led political process of transition of power, including the holding of early Presidential elections. This

resolution explicitly recalled the Yemeni Governments "primary responsibility to protect its population." 4. South Sudan (2011)

On 8 July 2011, the Security Council, in resolution 1996, established a UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), to among other things advise and assist the government in fulfilling its responsibility to protect civilians. South Sudan officially became an independent country on 9 July 2011, the climax of a process made possible by a 2005 peace deal that ended a long civil war. 5. Syria (2012)

The Security Council, however, has not always found room for agreement in response to responsibility to protect situations. In the case of Syria, on 4 February 2012 the Security Council voted on a draft resolution backing an Arab League plan to resolve the crisis in the country, where UN officials estimated that security forces had killed well over 7,500 people since the popular uprising began in March 2011. The draft resolution called on the Syrian Government to cease violence against civilians and withdraw its armed forces. Thirteen of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the text, but China and Russia exercised their vetoes and therefore blocked the adoption of the resolution. Subsequently, both the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council strongly condemned the continued "widespread and systematic" human rights violations by the Syrian authorities and demanded that the government immediately cease all violence and protect its people. The High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended referring the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court and urged the Security Council to assume its responsibility to protect the population of Syria. The Special Advisers on Genocide Prevention and on the Responsibility to Protect called for the consideration of the full range of regional and global tools under the United Nations Charter some of which do not require Security Council authorization to address the situation.

Types of Intervention
Authorized Intervention
Most states prefer to secure UN authorization before using force for humanitarian purposes, and agree that the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, can authorize military action in response to severe atrocities and other humanitarian emergencies that it concludes constitute a threat to peace and security. The term threats to peace and security has been broadened ever since 1990s, which today even includes issues such as mass displacement and today United Nations Security Council has authorized intervention even in cases which states might have seen as internal disputes years ago. Hence, UNSC authorization becomes very important as the UNSC is the sole legitimate body which has the power to do so. A very recent example for UN Authorized Intervention is the 2011 intervention of Libya, which took place during the civil war to stop the atrocities committee by Colonel Gaddafi and his followers. The UNSC took notice of the situation in Libya in the beginning of 2011 and after various discussions passed UNSC resolution 1973 which Authorized the military intervention in Libya.

Unauthorized Intervention
Unauthorized Intervention is when a nation or an alliance decides to intervene unilaterally without obeying the set orders of legitimate authority. In several instances states or groups of states have intervened with force, and without advance authorization from the UN Security Council, at least in part in response to alleged extreme violations of basic human rights. Fairly recent examples include the intervention after the Gulf War to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq as well as NATOs intervention in Kosovo.

Excusable Breach
Humanitarian intervention without a UN mandate is technically illegal under the rules of the UN Charter, but may be morally and politically justified in certain exceptional cases. Benefits of this approach include that it contemplates no new legal rules governing the use of force, but rather opens an emergency exit when there is a tension between the rules governing the use of force and the protection of fundamental human rights. Intervening states are unlikely to be condemned as law-breakers, although they take a risk of violating rules for a purportedly higher purpose. However, in practice, this could lead to questioning the legitimacy of the legal rules themselves if they are unable to justify actions the majority of the UN Security Council views as morally and politically unjustified.

LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/docs/ICISS1201supplement.pdf http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/57/303 http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issue s2011/pursuingpeace/r2pandtheun http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/UMC_R2PBackground.pdf http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/Cardozo/Profiles/phhrs5 64/The%20Responsibility%20to%20Prevent%20Final%20pdf(1).pdf

https://www.fh-muenster.de/humanitaere-hilfe/downloads/Evans__Responsibility_To_Protect.pdf