This blog post explores the dilemma that arises between national sovereignty and the protection of human rights in humanitarian intervention, and discusses how the international community can harmoniously resolve it.
We recognized the necessity of international attention through the Kosovo crisis and the tragedy in East Timor. When such tragedies cause countless people to suffer death and agony, and when the responsible state lacks the ability or will to halt these tragedies, we are reminded of the need for the international community to intervene at the appropriate time. It is particularly important to emphasize that such intervention must not be limited to military solutions but must encompass diverse approaches, including humanitarian aid, political mediation, and economic reconstruction. In the case of Kosovo, NATO member states intervened without a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. This led to prolonged debates within the international community over the legitimacy of international law and allegations of sovereignty violations. In the case of East Timor, the Security Council did resolve for United Nations intervention, but only after receiving a request from Indonesia, a party to the conflict. We hope this intervention will swiftly stabilize the situation in East Timor. However, hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people have already died. As in Rwanda in the past, the international community will likely face criticism for doing almost nothing and intervening far too late.
Today, the world is entering an era of new actors, new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and development. Above all, we must note that the traditional concept of sovereignty is changing due to globalization and increased international cooperation. As countries around the world become increasingly interconnected economically, culturally, and politically, situations where one country’s problems become another’s are becoming more frequent. Amidst these changes, the international community has recognized the need for a more cooperative and inclusive approach. The new century also demands a fresh and more comprehensive understanding of the concept of national interest. Moreover, the serious challenges we currently face convey a new message: the interests of humanity as a whole are indeed the interests of the nation. This extends beyond mere economic interests to encompass global-scale issues such as environmental problems, human rights issues, terrorism, and the spread of infectious diseases. The traditional concept of human rights has become even more firmly established. The concept of human rights, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and subsequent international conventions, is now widely accepted. From past tragedies, we now understand better than ever that we must never tolerate forces that violate human rights. The United Nations must be transformed to meet the demands of our times. Yet, we remain uncertain about how the United Nations should respond to these changes.
The genocide in Rwanda starkly demonstrated the horrific consequences that can arise when the United Nations takes no action. Conversely, the international community’s conflict over the Kosovo crisis raised equally important questions about the outcomes of military action taken without consensus through the United Nations or clear legal authority. This is the dilemma of humanitarian intervention. Is it justifiable to use military force without a mandate from the United Nations? Or must we acquiesce to the continued, systematic violation of human rights on a massive scale? It is truly tragic that the international community cannot satisfy both of these critical issues, as demonstrated in the Kosovo crisis.
To prevent such tragic situations from recurring, a new consensus on humanitarian intervention is needed. Above all, there must be agreement on the principle that collective and systematic human rights violations must be stopped wherever they occur. Furthermore, as seen in the Kosovo crisis, there must also be agreement on how to determine what action is necessary, when it should be taken, and who should carry it out. Several considerations are essential for this. It is problematic to understand humanitarian intervention solely as the use of force. The criteria for judging humanitarian intervention must also overcome regional or ethnic interests. To achieve this, the international community must transcend the traditional concept of sovereignty, based on the premise that the interests of the international community are the interests of individual nations. Furthermore, the United Nations must possess substantive power commensurate with its stature to uphold the principles of its Charter and protect human rights. This power must extend beyond purely military means; it must also be utilized to maintain peace and support post-conflict reconstruction. Even after situations violating human rights have ended, international-level efforts to sustain peace and continue humanitarian assistance must persist. Through such efforts, the international community must pursue true global peace and stability.
