© 2003 by Oxford University Press
Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law and Threats to National Sovereignty
1 Based on an address prepared for the ‘High Level Group Meeting’ of the InterAction Council, Harvard University
The right or even obligation to intervene in the name of humanity in the affairs of a foreign state, regardless of that state's sovereignty, may be traced to the writings of such ‘fathers’ of international law as Grotius, Suarez, Pufendorf, Wolff or Vattel. They, however, did not propose any enforcement, other than a possible resort to war. Nineteenth century doctrine, as propounded by writers like Phillimore, Westlake or Hall, recognized a similar right, but often only if undertaken by a group of states rather than individually. Even in the twentieth century such writers as Stowell or Lauterpacht maintained that a right of humanitarian intervention existed in international law. In addition, there have been isolated instances where states have resorted to such action, primarily on behalf of religious or ethnic minorities. In most of these instances, there has been a denial that any threat to the national sovereignty was involved. With the developments consequent upon the second world war in relation to human rights, it has become increasingly asserted as part of international law that states have a clear right to protest and even intervene where there is a blatant disregard of these rights. When, as in non-international conflicts, such breaches have involved outrages against the human conscience, non-parties, both with and without the authority of the United Nations, have claimed the right to intervene to terminate such excesses, and have even gone to the extreme insisting upon the replacement of the local government by one committed to democratic principles. Occasionally, even, they have established interim administrations regardless of the local sovereignty.