Governing humanitarian intervention : time for change

The past century has seen major developments in technology and science, but far less seismic shifts in global governance. States continue to cling to the paradigm of state sovereignty in an interstate system, while practical sovereignty is eroded in favour of a globalised world. What prevails is a largely seventeenth-century notion that arose from the ashes of the Thirty Years War, of disparate sovereign territories interacting on the twin basis of unfettered domestic control by each state and concomitant respect for the domestic control of other states within their territories. This simply does not work in the twenty-first century. Nowhere is this more evident than in the sporadic, uncoordinated nature of humanitarian intervention as a norm of international law. Humanitarian intervention reveals the inherent tension between the power of every state to govern within its territory and the right of every human being to protection, whether their state affords it to them or not. The key argument put forth in this chapter is that a clear criterion is needed for governing humanitarian intervention. The chapter does not take the well-trod path of criticising the way humanitarian intervention is implemented - not because the United Nations Security Council's actions over the past six decades have been in any way exemplary, but because it is too difficult, and therefore is at the present time unrealistic, to reform the Security Council. The veto power of the permanent five members of the Security Council (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia) extends to any amendment of the United Nations Charter, and it is unlikely to get all five permanent members to agree to any decision that reduces their power. The degree of urgency and the need for certainty and predictability in international law with respect to humanitarian intervention is such that we cannot wait for Security Council reform.