SHOULD THE UN INTERVENE WITH OPPRESSIVE REGIMES? A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL ASPECT OF HUMAN RIGHT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION
By Devangana RL Shah, Rakshita Saxena & Shreya Rai
The establishment of the United Nations (UN) is for the sole purpose of securing and protecting the world peace for the entire human race. The events post World War I and II can be pointed as the triggering factor that planned the idea of International cooperation for the attainment of lasting world peace.
One of the basic principle that UN works on is the ‘Protection of every State’s sovereignty’ which might be violated in case of any form of humanitarian intervention done by UN in times of crises in the form of dispatching or giving authority to other states to dispatch their forces to the area of crises.
There is a whole branch of International law that defines what can be classified as ‘humanitarian intervention’ and what are the legal requirements that need to be met before taking such steps. The invasion/ intervention of Afghanistan by the United States on the pretext to capture Osama Bin Laden marks the highlight of the partisan nature and the politicization of United Nation especially Security Council. It also shows how due to its position in UN and the Security Council the United States influences and sometimes undermines the basic procedure of international law, like modifying the legal requirements for declaring war.
This paper will critically analyze the methods by which United Nation has been able to maintain its standards while dealing with violation and protection of citizens under oppressive regimes, and also analyze the justifications given by the United Nations for interfering in the internal operations of certain countries, like Libya and Afghanistan while failing to intervene in some, like the crisis of Syria.
©2020- Lex Humanitariae: Journal for a Change