Briefing Paper Social Sciences Term Paper Research

Briefing Paper
Subject
Arguments for and against Britain intervening in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons
Background
When a country intervenes in the affairs of another state for humanitarian reasons, this concept is often referred to as humanitarian intervention. It is a concept that has been practiced since World War II and has developed over the years, through both the traditional and modern international law (Rattan 2019, p.1). Humanitarian interventions have gained a lot of focus over the last few decades due to their controversial nature. The controversy stems from the fact that humanitarian interventions can either lead to the salvation of a suffering population or the abuse of power by the intervening country (Zimmermann, 2014). Also, under international law, as provided by the United Nations (UN) Charter, humanitarian intervention assumes a very contradictory nature. On one hand, Article 2 of the UN Charter supports the non-intervention principle to ensure that all states maintain their sovereignty and independence (Rattan 2019, p.1). Under this principle, the UN cannot authorise humanitarian interventions within the domestic jurisdiction of a state. On the other hand, Article 47 of the Charter states that the Security Council can authorise the use of air, land, or sea forces if a country has committed aggression against humanity or has interfered with peace and security (Schultz 2017, p.422). The Security Council can invoke humanitarian intervention is such a case to restore or maintain peace and security in the said state. These two provisions of the UN Charter cause a dilemma, especially given that the decision to intervene on another state's affair is made by a collective and in other cases, by a single state (Schultz 2017, p.422). Under international law, several questions about humanitarian interventions are raised:
* What is the legality of humanitarian interventions? Is it legal when authorisation has been issued by the UN (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.4)? This question is of particular interest because in some cases, authorisation from the UN may be delayed or denied, yet a legitimate threat to humanity is present.
* How can abuse of power be checked to ensure that some states do not intervene in the affairs of other states with ulterior motives (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5), such as gaining control over certain resources in that state? This is especially crucial when UN authorisation is absent.
* Which type of cases should states, such as Britain, intervene in (Heraclides & Dialla 2017, p.5)? This question addresses the issue of how states can decide which cases to intervene in, regardless of whether they have UN authorisation or not. Such cases include ethnic cleansing, systemic discrimination, or mass murder.
In the past, Britain has intervened with the affairs of another state for humanitarian purposes. For instance, in 2018, the British government, in collaboration with France and the United States, ordered airstrikes on Syria after learning that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons (House of Commons, 2018). While such interventions from Britain have occurred in other instances, they always spark a debate on the benefits and limitations of such a...