Blog

THE LEGALITY OF INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTIONS

The recent international interventions in the Middle East raise the question of the legality of interventions in the internal affairs of a country. The view of international public opinion, in line with international politics, is condemnatory of interventions. The criterion of national sovereignty remains extremely strong in the field of international law, as well as in the common conscience, so that intervention in the internal affairs of a country is identified with the concept of invasion. It is, however, a fact that any interventions find a different interpretation on both sides. Where the side concerned justifies its interventions as beneficial and imposed, while the opposing side condemns them as a brutal infringement of national sovereignty. It will therefore be necessary to place the conflicting concepts of interventions and national sovereignty, in order to estimate the equilibrium point.

The UN Secretary General De Cuellar was the first to raise the dilemma of the legality of interventions in 1991: "The law of intervention has gained new momentum from recent events. We are witnessing a rather irreversible shift in common attitudes towards the view that defending the oppressed in the name of morality should override borders and written laws." Faced with the incompatibility of interventions and international law, the Secretary-General makes an appeal "towards a new conception, which marries morality with law." De Guillaume's successor Boutros Boutros-Ghali raised this issue before the Security Council: "Respect for fundamental sovereignty and integrity is crucial for any shared international progress. However, the era of absolute and exclusive sovereignty is over."

The UN Charter explicitly prohibits intervention - even by the UN - in the internal affairs of a country, in matters that belong to it. substantially in its exclusive jurisdiction, based on the rules of national sovereignty (Chapter I, Art. 2, Par. 7). But it also reserves the right of UN intervention in a country whose actions disturb the peace.

The meaning of intervention, as understood in the UN Charter, is par excellence policy, in the sense of mild and beneficial character, and consists of peaceful and conciliatory means, in the need for economic and diplomatic clauses, in order to restore normality in the country in question and avoid or even stop the conflict. For this latter purpose, the UN may resort to the last resort of a military intervention by the international community, and namely to the minimum required measure. The main and most effective weapon of the UN is the peaceful settlement of disputes, as provided for in Chapter VI of the Charter. The last resort, in the event of a threat to peace, is the taking of military action, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII. In particular, in the event of uncontrolled situations and local conflicts, where the lives of civilian populations are directly threatened, the actions of the UN move preventively between Chapters VI and VII, for the care and armed protection of populations and humanitarian missions, the Organization's representatives, the local legitimate government, and so on.  

We will focus on the concept of interventions and the essence of legalization by the UN, under the full force of the principle of national sovereignty. According to Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno [1][1] the term �surgery� implies the physical crossing of a country's borders, for the fulfillment of a specific purpose. In this sense, intervention is both the aerial bombing of a country, and the intervention of "Doctors Without Borders" and other "non-governmental organizations" and individuals for the benefit of the suffering population, where, in the latter case, the intervention is welcome. Intervention also constitutes an embargo against a country, as well as its diplomatic isolation, which aim to impose a "law-abiding" behavior on its part.

It is clear from this that the interventions start from two diametrically opposed starting points. One of them aims to secure the national benefits of a country or coalition at the expense of another country, the other aims to impose international legitimacy and ensure international peace, on the basis of the UN Charter, with the aim of the well-meaning general good. And we cannot doubt the good intentions of an organization that represents the entirety of international society. We would point out, however, that the boundaries of distinction between the two cases of intervention are extremely confusing and unclear, to the extent that the same event of intervention takes on the most contradictory shades in public perception, depending on the general positions and its communication projection.

The Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia (1956 and 1968) were characterized by the Greek side as a brutal violation of the sovereign rights of these countries. On the contrary, the Soviet side classified them as "beneficial" cases, aimed at the general good of the Soviet world, on the basis of the Brezhnev doctrine, called and "doctrine of limited national sovereignty"The Brezhnev decree legitimized the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, to restore them to the socialist order.[2][2] In this case, it was another "peace order" aimed at the progress and good of the socialist world. Similarly, American interventions in Europe and East Asia were carried out in the name of peace, security and democratic freedomsThis contradictory interpretation of the interventions practically boils down to the conflict between the two worlds (Eastern and Western), with the corresponding confrontations within the UN organization.

The origins of international interventions go deep into European history. In the form of dynastic and religious wars, of wars of succession and colonial wars, which constitute a major chapter of modern history. The treaty of Westphalian (1648) is a milestone in European history. It marks the end of the Thirty Years' War and restores the freedom of conscience and sovereignty of the states.

The other stop is the Congress of Vienna (Oct. 1814- Jun. 1815), which aims to restore European hegemony, which was shaken by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Especially the secret Holy Alliance between the three hegemonic powers, Russia, Austria and Prussia, aimed at maintaining the hegemonic status in Europe and combating the liberal ideas of the French Revolution. The method of enforcing this aim was the brutal military interventions, to suppress the liberal uprisings and ensure the balance in the European space. The interventions of the Holy Alliance in Spain, Portugal, Naples and Sardinia are characteristic, as is the suppression of the Greek demand for liberation from the Turkish yoke. Of the countries of the liberal European space, England opposed, through König, the policy of interventions, arguing that "Every nation has the right to follow the system of government it deems best." Ultimately, it was the Greek revolution that dealt the fatal blow to the Holy Alliance.

Modern European history is marked by the numerous interventions of colonial conquests and the subsequent wars of independence of the colonies, which were completed well after the end of World War II.^th World War.

From the entire political strategy of colonial wars, we consider the French "school" of generals Bijou (1748-1849), Galeny (1849-1916) and Lyotard (1854-1934) to be worth mentioning. This essentially introduces us to the modern methods of "neo-colonial" interventions, where the Americans seem to have adopted the basic principles of this school. The main characteristics of the colonial school are that it does not aim at the crushing of the enemy (Napoleonic principle), but at a permanent subjugation of the conquered. with the organization of the colonies under their own -colonial- principle and the cooperation of the colonial populations, within attractive conditions of administration and production, which will achieve and consolidate the pacification. [3][3]

This is a primarily political undertaking, requiring broad-mindedness and political judgment from the military commander. Given that the military commander will also be the political commander of the colony, he must limit the war damage to a minimum and, in parallel with the conduct of the war, proceed with the organization of the local market, the cultivation of the land, the improvement of the water supply, the construction of roads, etc. The entire policy of the operational commander aimed at avoiding terrorizing the indigenous populations, so as not to provoke their rebellion, and at preparing the ground for a harmonious coexistence.

The chief strategist of the colonial war, General Lyotai, differentiates colonial from classical war, in that "Instead of bringing death to the theater of operations, it aims to create life within it." Although he understood the colonial war as a creator of new life, new cities and harvests, which achieves "peaceful occupation" and turns would-be rebels into partners. – exactly what contemporary American interventions preach. And we should point out that the French school was successful in its political goals.

From balancing interventions to "humanitarian" interventions.

The contradictory term of "humanitarian wars", which was introduced into political terminology during the intervention in Yugoslavia, proved to be extremely uncommunicative and provoked public opinion, – witnessing a “massacre” of civilians. However, President Clinton, when he led his country into the Yugoslav war, on the basis of the quasi-doctrine of "supremacy of human freedoms over national sovereignty", neither was it dogmatically original, nor was it attempting to deceive international public opinion. President Carter (1977-81) was the first to declare that "US relations with other countries will be based on respect for human rights." Since then the concept of humanitarian interventions gained enough ground to become acceptable and further payable by international public opinion. The atrocities against the Kurdish populations of Iraq (1991), the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95), the massacres in Rwanda (500 thousand victims and 3 million refugees: 1994), the civil war in Somalia (1991-95),[4][4] caused the intervention of the UN. But they also made international public opinion aware that no authority or group can commit violence against man, covered by the "impenetrability" of state borders. That humanity cannot remain indifferent to man who is in danger and suffering. On the contrary, it has the "obligation to intervene", the omission of which constitutes a crime against humanity, proportionate to the offense "failure to provide assistance to a person in danger", which is valid in several European countries (France, Belgium, etc.).

UN statistics show that civilian casualties range from 10% to 1^ο P.P. (compared to 90% of conscripts), rose to 50% during the 2^ο P.B. and 75% during modern conflicts. In the face of this reality, the international communication community is increasingly realizing that the person who suffers and is in danger is "everyone's business".

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will boldly declare: "We are the organization of interventions: to prevent conflicts, to stop them, to surround them, to prevent them from spreading."[5][5] This is a clear stance towards the suffering human being, by extension international peace, in which political and humanitarian means (care, food and security of civilians) prevail, with the condescension of the warring country, and in need, with disregard for borders and the principles of national sovereignty. [6]

We can therefore unconditionally accept the need for humanitarian interventions, which, in a last resort, can take the form of armed intervention, but we reject the concept of a predetermined "humanitarian war". This is exactly where the gray an area of ​​ambiguous interventions, which, like a Trojan Horse, serve the fixed political goals of an intervening power, raising the key questions of the times: Whether the intervening power avoids preventing or even fostering the creation of conditions for armed intervention. Consequently, whether the intervention becomes the vehicle for its own political goals, damaging the goal of peace.

The crucial question of the times, which brought Europe and the USA into political conflict, is the policy of monomeric and preventive interventions, within the framework of an �ad hoc� alliance, in the absence of the UN. This is, in the European view, an extremely risky undertaking, to which the US responds with the argument of absoluteness of the terrorist threat, which threatens this country (and every target country) with economic disaster. Faced with this danger, America refuses to entrust its security to the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), preferring its self-management and opening the ! bags of preventive interventions.

The developments in Iraq have justified the political wisdom of "old Europe", which was invoked last June by the President of the EU. Romano Prodi. It is confirmed once again that no war is predictable, both in its operational outcome and, above all, in the achievement of its political goals. However, political roads are also opened by walking. Intervention in a vital area, such as the Middle East, is a globalized energy, which concerns peace as a whole and leaves no one indifferent. The transatlantic disagreement on the issue of preventive wars does not have the political depth of a definitive dimension. The multiple transatlantic ties (political, cultural, security, above all economic) are extremely strong, to withstand any test.                                  An/gos n.a. F. Metallinos