THE UN AND LEGITIMATE INTERVENTION

4 THE UN AND LEGITIMATE INTERVENTION

6 We will explore the idea of global economic justice further in the

next section. Here, however, we should reflect on two of the solidarist

8 claims. The first is that norms change over time. As we have seen

9 much contemporary IR theory explores the development and role

10 of norms in world politics and this reflects the arguments that we

1 can see in the UN Security Council, General Assembly and in

2 the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. There is a

3 groundswell of opinion that argues that the charter of the UN (a

4 symbol of the attitude of the international community) is a living

5 document that has been interpreted and reinterpreted to broaden

6 the understanding of the proper use of force and our commitment

7 to international justice more generally. Yet because the international

legal regime relating to humanitarian intervention is what lawyers

9 call lex ferenda (law as it ought to be or norms in the process of

20 becoming law) rather than fully established lex lata it is not the case 1222 that we can point to the inaction of the UN in times of crisis and

2 say categorically that member states are failing to live up to their

3 international obligations. Rather we have to find ways to show why

4 we think that humanitarian intervention ought to be a priority for

5 the Security Council and convince those who have no national

6 interest in such operations that they should get involved or, at the

7 very least, not frustrate the decision-making mechanisms of the

8 Security Council by exercising a veto. The solidarist position links

9 constructivism and just war theory, the new and the old, to present

30 us with an understanding of the evolution of norms concerning

1 humanitarian intervention as a response to ‘supreme emergency’

2 conditions such as genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing that

3 have been at the forefront of international ethics since the Second

4 World War. Here the core idea is that stability requires justice rather

5 than military might arranged in a balance of power.

6 The second claim we need to reflect upon is the solidarist claim

7 that authorization of an intervention by the UN, in particular the

Security Council, is essential to the legitimacy of that intervention.

170 F ROM STABILITY TO JUSTICE ? For some scholars the moral obligation to help those confronted

the unimaginable suffering occasioned by civil wars and tyrannical regimes, once established, becomes the most important issue. In his book Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination: The Moral Foundations of International Law, Allen Buchanan (2004) argues that the obvious conflict between principles of humanitarian intervention and the national self-interest of sovereign states requires

a complete rejection of the ‘UN-based law of humanitarian inter- vention’ and of the ‘state-consent model of international law’ more generally (Buchanan 2004: 1–14). The argument is clear. If you have principles of justice that oblige us to aid those in extreme suffering but political and legal institutions that are structurally unable to deliver on those obligations then we need to reform or scrap those institutions. The structure of the UN charter and the Security Council is such that instances of humanitarian disaster are dealt with late, or selectively, if at all and the prospects for constitutional reform are bleak. It therefore stands to reason that we need to move beyond the UN and the system of international law that gives sovereign actors the freedom to be above the law. However, for Wheeler (2000) and the solidarists, we must recognize that the development of norms of humanitarian intervention is ‘subject to the very important caveat that the society of states shows little or no enthusiasm for legitimating acts of humanitarian intervention not authorized by the Security Council’ (Wheeler 2000: 286). In other words we are constrained by a genuine reluctance to give up the rights and protections of sovereignty. How should you decide which position to adopt (and these are not the only possible positions)? Ultimately it will require that you engage with the political, legal and moral arguments that constitute IR theory. It is not really a matter of finding the ‘truth’ of the matter. Rather it is a matter of becoming informed enough to add your voice to the diplomatic dialogue that ultimately shapes the development of our international political system.

WORLD POVERTY AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC JUSTICE: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The idea that only justice will bring genuine stability has a long history. But it does rather beg the question ‘What is justice?’, which

F ROM STABILITY TO JUSTICE ? 171

1 has an even longer history. For a long time mainstream IR sought

2 to avoid the question, regarding it as masking the real questions

3 concerning power relations. But the post-1945 world has proven an

4 increasingly fertile arena for exploring questions of international

5 justice and a lot of effort and money has gone in to trying to meet

6 the demands that this places upon the international community. 722