Humanitarian intervention and the evolution of UN peacekeeping

Humanitarian Intervention

The neoliberal conception of the world that emerged after World War Two incorporated an expanded role for international agencies, led by the United Nations, and an expanded sense of common responsibility among nations. Humanitarian intervention is one of the ways in which this common responsibility has manifested. The process of decolonialization in particular has brought about new conceptions of sovereignty and the nation-state. The UN emphasized one of the key ways in which these ideas have changed. In the past, a nation's sovereignty was absolute, but in the modern world the move has been more towards the concept of human rights, of the individual, and this can at least in some selected cases trump the sovereign nation-state. The UN in particular has instituted the concept of the Right to Protect, meaning humanitarian intervention.

Toward Humanitarian Intervention

The UN's charter did not make mention of peacekeeping, and yet peacekeeping has become one of the UN's highly-visible roles. Conflict in many parts of the world has resulted in humanitarian crises -- populations ravaged by war were in need of help. The ability of international agencies to help has necessitated the peacekeeper -- a military force intended to keep the peace and allow for humanitarian aid to restore civil order in a region otherwise beset by conflict. By the 1990s, peacekeeping became de rigeur for the United Nations, and the peacekeeping budget at the UN grew to $3.6 billion. The UN Security Council spurred this change when it broadened the concept of "threat to peace" to include threats to the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields." Thus, where humanitarian intervention was once for situation's like 1980s Cambodia, it was now justified to protect social or economic interests of external nations.

In other words, humanitarian intervention on the part of the UN is not entirely altruistic. There are benefits to UN member states of such actions. Given how much the world's population has boomed since the end of the 19th century, and the intensity with which modern conflict is fought, regional conflict has the potential to create global instability. Refugee flows, famines and terrorism are all issues that can arise out of conflict, and all are better addressed through humanitarian intervention than allowing them to fester unchecked.

Humanitarian intervention has faced numerous challenges as the concept has been developed and implemented around the world. In cases like Somalia, domestic political wrangling undermined the ability of UN peacekeepers to perform their roles effectively. The Security Council, in a shining of example of how it gets in the way of actually solving problems, twiddled its thumbs while the Rwandan genocide was occurring, providing a number of lessons for future peacekeeping missions. Peacekeeping was now challenged at the existential level -- could peacekeepers truly remain neutral and committed to disarming peoples, when not all involved in a conflict are willing to acquiesce? By the time Kosovo happened, NATO was willing to work around the Security Council's petty politicking and do the right thing, using force where the UN lacked the stomach for it, in order to enforce a peace upon a belligerent regime.

Pursuing the Perpetrators

Where does humanitarian intervention end and the UN start to act as global law enforcement? To what extent should the UN and its peacekeepers pursue the perpetrators of war crimes? The UN has the Internatioanl Criminal Court, which on paper at least is an important component of establishing a world order in which individual rights are protected. Victims of war crimes in particular have an interest in seeing the perpetrators brought to justice, and sometimes justice is required to begin the healing process. But there is significant quesiotn about what role the UN should in this. This court certainly challenges the notion of the sovereign state, in particular when a state acts in a manner opposed by enough other states. The Sudan proved to be an awkward first test of the ICC in the current era. ICC involvement in the Sudan ran counter to the interests of the African Union -- essentially the issue was viewed as powerful nations without a genuine stake in the Sudan were imposing a judicial process that would negatively affect the region for years to come. The ICC, the African Union claimed, would not bring about the desired state of resolution in Africa, but instead would only inflame conflict more.

Lastly, the ICC has been challenged in that international law has been challenged, repeatedly. American drone use has expanded the idea of pre-emptive strikes, Russia invaded Ukraine…the most powerful nations use the concept of international law when it serves their purposes, and reject its legitimacy when doing so is more beneficial. International law is thus in a state of evolution, and for every action that brings it closer to protecting the rights of individuals, the inherent conflict between those rights, and state sovereignty, brings about backlash from powerful states. The ICC seems to have been a step too far for many nations, which is why "pursuing the perpetrators" is more contentious than other aspects of humanitarian intervention.