When is humanitarian intervention compatible with the promotion of human rights and when are

they in tension?
‫مقدمة‬

The subject of humanitarian intervention is one of the topics that has taken up a great deal of space
among the international community because it is related to important topics in international law
such as the principle of non-interference, sovereignty and human rights. The importance of studying
this topic at this time stems from the evolution of the concept of humanitarian intervention.

In my article, I will highlight the nature of humanitarian intervention and present some of the
arguments that supported humanitarian intervention and some arguments that opposed this
intervention. I will discuss the issue of humanitarian intervention in Libya and the international
community's view of this intervention and its justifications.

The difficulty of agreeing on a specific definition of humanitarian intervention, as it is a subject of

conflicting legal norms and as a subject in which law is intertwined with the law, remains the subject
of humanitarian intervention. Evidence of this is the term "responsibility for protection" Recently.

One aspect of jurisprudence is that humanitarian intervention is any intervention limited to armed
force in the definition of it. To implement it to protect human rights, the military force is the basis on
which it is based, and this is reflected by

The term humanitarian intervention has been common in the past decade in an attempt to create
conditions for the establishment of new international customary rules that serve the interests of
States that have advocated the establishment of a new international order, by exploiting the
principles of human rights and the rules of international humanitarian law to justify the illegal use of
force to achieve its political and strategic objectives

The objectives of the intervention are often noble or higher goals invoked by the intervening state
and may take various forms. Therefore, I will review some of the most common objectives of
intervention: (a) Intervention for ideological or religious purposes; C) Overstepping the framework of
international relations and limiting time and size. D. Attempting to change the political system of the
victim state, to intervene to maintain higher human values

However, if we look at humanitarian intervention from another angle and in terms of purpose and
purpose, it is an international act aimed at the protection of human rights. This is a legitimate
objective. Its legitimacy is from the point of view of its supporters in that it aims to protect human
rights and therefore can be seen as a legitimate act. Supporters of this trend are based on their
rejection and opposition to humanitarian intervention on the grounds that it is illegal under the
provisions of general international law because it is not based on legal basis and that it constitutes
Attack on The principles of sovereignty and non-interference, both of which are among the most
important principles of general international law.

Some see humanitarian intervention as interferes with the stability of the State and its freedom of
treatment of nationals, and that the recognition of the permissibility of such interference leads to
anarchy in international relations and the interference of States in the affairs of some of them
whenever their political purposes so call." And that the use of moral rules is not sufficient to justify
such interference, and that such interference is an unlawful interference and that the ethical rules on
which it is based are incorrect because it contravenes the legal rules and thus the intervention is also
contrary to moral rules for violating legal rules.

while the second trend claim That humanitarian intervention is a legitimate intervention and is not
prohibited by the rules of public international law. However, the proponents of this trend differed in
the legal basis on which the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is based, since the majority goes
to the legitimacy of a moral basis, Kruchius was the first to address the idea of humanitarian
intervention and has established its legitimacy on the basis of moral and within the concept of war in
his writings, followed by many jurists who established the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention on
a moral basis.

argues that it is not based on a legal basis, but on moral grounds. As long as the circle of ethics and
public morality is broader than the law, humanitarian intervention is legitimate as long as it is based
on morality and morality. That the humanitarian intervention can not be seen as contrary to the
general principles of law, but the opposite is true, and that international law that prevents such
interference and prevents it by its rules threatens itself with moral decency

In the light of the clarity and frankness of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations on the
prohibition of the use or threat of force in international relations, some writers of the West tried to
find legal justification for the idea of humanitarian intervention. Based on the principles of human
rights and the rules of international humanitarian law that authorize States to use force with the
consent of the Security Council or without their consent against other States under the pretext of the
protection of human rights.

International intervention for protection purposes since 1980 has expanded from the United States
and the West The protection of their citizens and their interests abroad, or the protection of
democracy and human rights Protection of civilians. Therefore, external military intervention is
motivated by protection or is still controversial Was permanent when it happened in Somalia, Bosnia
and Kosovo, and when the international community failed to intervene in Rwanda.

There has been considerable controversy over the issue of human intervention since its emergence
in the international arena and its successive applications, in which legal crises are often raised
between the legality of illegitimacy and sometimes illegitimacy. This is evident in the Libyan case.

Libya, like other countries in the Arab world in general and Maghreb in particular, has witnessed a
large wave of rebellion that has caused great transformations in the history of these countries, in
which the Libyans have succeeded in overthrowing their regimes. However, the Libyan people have
deviated from their predecessors from neighboring countries, Tunisia, where the Libyan crisis took
the direct nature of the violence, where the events slipped from peaceful demonstration to serious
armed conflict, which made the countries and organizations stand by this armed conflict. They played
an important role in the Libyan issue and the balance of conflict within it. The Security Council to
intervene through the issuance of resolution No. 1970 since Each intervention has a legal basis on
which to justify this act and to dictate it to international legitimacy for the need to have a convincing
reason and a legal text on which the intervening party depends on its commitment to international
legitimacy. The intervention in Libya is no different from its predecessors. It had a legal basis on
which the forces intervened in Libya, / 2011 issued by the International Security Council. There are
convictions by the international community that the Libyan issue is not the right of intervention by
any state but rather the responsibility of the protection of every State when it separates the suffering
of the civilian population from a preventable disaster such as mass murder, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity (according to their claims) The United Nations has called on the Security
Council to take the necessary measures towards the Libyan situation in order to demonstrate the
responsibility for protection in Libya for the international humanitarian intervention in Libya within
the framework of international legitimacy, which is detrimental to the NATO military intervention in
Kosovo. Its legitimacy, especially in a sovereign state with the approval of the Security Council,

And that what happened in Libya is an internal affair and that foreign intervention was a political goal
that goes beyond the facts in Libya and that the intervention exceeded all the limits set by UN
resolution 1973 and that the results that Libya is witnessing are the best proof that the intervention
was aggressive and Was a threat to their interests in the region

the idea of humanitarian intervention is an old idea in the international community and is due to the
beginning of the emergence of the principle of international public law on human rights. And that the
protection of human rights through humanitarian intervention is to stop and prevent serious
violations of human rights and to stop these violations through humanitarian intervention must be
accompanied by resort to force, and that the force associated with humanitarian intervention is not
only military force, but force in the sense Which includes the use of political, economic and military
methods or the threat of using them or any other method of coercion and coercion that could lead to
the purpose of humanitarian intervention. That humanitarian intervention in reality is only a form of
intervention, and leads to the same effects reflected by any interference on sovereignty, in that it
leads to prejudice to sovereignty. Therefore, we found that the legitimacy of humanitarian
intervention was and still is the subject of the jurisprudential dispute

The phenomenon of humanitarian intervention has become prominent and distinctive with the
emergence of the new international order. The world has been marked with different features, the
most prominent being the breadth we have been living in since the early 1990s. The scope of the
intervention of the international community in the internal affairs of States and the predominance of
the international character of the world on many Especially issues related to human rights and
democracy. These issues and problems are no longer confined to the internal order of the state, but
rather their universality and their linkage to world peace and security.

Refernces
Wheeler, Nicholas J. Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. OUP Oxford,
2000.
HOLZGREFE, Jeff L.; KEOHANE, Robert O. (ed.). Humanitarian intervention: ethical, legal and
political dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Pattison, James. "The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya." Ethics & International Affairs 25.3
(2011): 271-277.

CRONOGUE, Graham. Responsibility to Protect: Syria The Law, Politics, and Future of Humanitarian
Intervention Post-Libya. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 2012, 3.1: 124-159.
Charney, Jonathan I. "Anticipatory humanitarian intervention in Kosovo." American journal of
international law 93.4 (1999): 834-841.

Bogen, D. S. (1965). Law of Humanitarian Intervention: United States Policy in Cuba (1898) and in the
Dominican Republic (1965), The. Harv. Int'l. L. Club J., 7, 296.

Lillich, R. B. (1967). Forcible self-help by states to protect human rights. Iowa L. Rev., 53, 325.

FALK, Richard A. The United States and the doctrine of nonintervention in the internal affairs of
independent states. Howard LJ, 1959, 5: 163.