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 familiar side 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 on the scale, in order to assess the point of balance.

The UN Secretary-General De Cuellar was the first to raise the dilemma of the legality of interventions in 1991: “The law of interventions has acquired new momentum from recent events. We are witnessing a rather irreversible change in the common attitude towards the view that the defense of the oppressed in the name of morality should prevail over borders and written laws.” Faced with the incompatibility of interventions and international law, the Secretary-General made an appeal “for a new conception that marries morality with law.” De Guélier’s successor Boutros Boutros-Ghali raised this issue before the Security Council: “Respect for fundamental sovereignty and integrity is crucial for any common 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 essentially fall within its exclusive jurisdiction, based on the rules of national sovereignty (Chapter I, Art. 2, para. 7). But it also reserves the right of intervention by the UN in a country whose actions disturb the peace.

The concept of intervention , as understood in the UN Charter, is primarily political, in the sense of a mild and beneficial character, and consists of peaceful and conciliatory means, 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 in particular 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 weapon, in the event of a threat to peace, is the undertaking of military action, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII. Especially, in the case 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 the 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 their legitimization by the UN, under the full force of the capital of national sovereignty. According to Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno [1] [1] the term "intervention" 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. An embargo against a country, as well as its diplomatic isolation, which aim to impose "law-abiding" behavior on its part, also constitutes intervention.

It is clear from this that interventions start from two diametrically opposed starting points. One of them aims at securing the national benefits of a country or coalition at the expense of another country, the other aims at imposing international legitimacy and ensuring international peace, on the basis of the UN Charter, with the aim of the well-understood general good. And we cannot doubt the good intentions of an organization that represents the entirety of international society. We will 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 act of intervention takes on the most contradictory shades in common perception, depending on the general positions and its communication projection.

The Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia (1956 and 1968) were characterized by the Soviet 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, also called the “doctrine of limited national sovereignty” . The Brezhnev doctrine legitimized the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, in order 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. Correspondingly, the American interventions in Europe and East Asia were carried out in the name of peace , security and democratic freedoms . This contradictory interpretation of the interventions practically goes back to the conflict of 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, wars of succession and colonial wars, which constitute a major chapter of modern history. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) is a milestone in European history. It seals the end of the Thirty Years' War and restores freedom of conscience and the national sovereignty of states.

The other station 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. In particular, 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 goal 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. Among the countries of the liberal European space, England opposed, through Kaning, the policy of interventions, arguing that "every nation has the right to follow the system of government that it deems best." Ultimately, it was the Greek revolution that gave the Holy Alliance the final blow.

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.

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) worthy of mention. 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 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 leading strategist of colonial warfare, General Lyotard, differentiates colonial from classical warfare in that “instead of bringing death to the theater of operations, it aims to create life within it.” Although he understood colonial warfare as a creator of new life, new cities and harvests, which achieves “peaceful occupation” and transforms would-be rebels into partners – precisely 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”, 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 war in Yugoslavia, on the basis of the quasi-doctrine of the “supremacy of human freedoms over national sovereignty”, was neither dogmatically original nor attempting to deceive international public opinion. First, President Carter (1977-81) declared that “US relations with other countries will be based on respect for human rights”. Since then, the concept of humanitarian interventions has gained enough ground to become acceptable and further demanded by international public opinion. The atrocities against the Kurdish populations of Iraq (1991), the wars in Bosnia and 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 and no group can commit violence against man, covered by the "impassability" of state borders. That humanity cannot remain indifferent in the face of man who is in danger and suffering. On the contrary, it has the "obligation to intervene" , the failure to do so constitutes a crime against humanity, analogous to the offense of "failure to provide assistance to a person in danger" , which applies in several European countries (France, Belgium, etc.).

UN statistics show that civilian casualties rose from 10% in World War I ⁽ compared to 90% of combatants) to 50% in World War II ^and to 75% in modern conflicts. In light of this reality, the international communications community is increasingly realizing that the suffering and danger of a person is “everyone’s business”.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would boldly declare: “We are the agency of intervention: to prevent conflicts, to stop them, to contain them, to prevent them from spreading.” [5] [5] This is a clear stance towards suffering humanity, and by extension international peace, in which political and humanitarian means (care, food and security for civilians) take precedence, 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 extreme cases, can take the form of armed intervention, but we reject the concept of a pre-determined “humanitarian war”. This is precisely where the grey area of ​​ambiguous interventions lies, which, like a Trojan Horse, serve the fixed political objectives 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 objectives, damaging the goal of peace.

The crucial question of the times, which brought Europe and the USA into political dimension, is the policy of unilateral 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 venture, to which the USA responds with the argument of the absoluteness of the terrorist risk, which threatens this country (and every target country) with economic disaster. Faced with this risk, America refuses to entrust its security to the UN Special Committee on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), prioritizing its self-management and opening the ! bags of preventive interventions.

The developments in Iraq 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 objectives. However, political paths are also opened by walking. Intervention in a vital area, such as the Middle East, is a globalized action , 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, so as to withstand any test. A/gos n.a. F. Metallinos