The Humanitarian Intervention in the Security Council Resolutions between Law and Politics during the Period from 1990-2012

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to highlight the changes in the Security Council’s activities, especially in the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century. It also aims at showing the transformation that has taken place in such activities from focusing on the security of states to the security of individuals and communities who need protection from the risk of crimes during armed conflicts.

Methods: The study was processed through its use of the historical analytical method, the legal method, the descriptive analytical method, and the decision-making method.

Results: Depending on its discretionary powers according to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council expands the definition of “security” in terms of its themes and objectives. The study points out the role of armed intervention in understanding the concept of “responsibility for protection,” shedding light on the conditions that are agreed upon by the United Nations Member States, and emphasizing the importance of meeting these conditions in order to justify using the armed force in the name of the “responsibility to protect.” In addition, the study clarifies cases in which the United Nations referred to the concept of “responsibility to protect” in order to justify armed interventions (e.g. Libya). Furthermore, the research paper traces the development of the concept of responsibility to protect in relation to its armed dimension.

Conclusions: The research argues that the concept of responsibility to protect is still valid and useful to describe the political environment in which the international community must interact with human rights violations. However, it is not possible to use this concept as the only legal basis for armed intervention in independent, sovereign states that enjoy effective governing power, because it is against the United Nations Charter which stresses non-interference in the internal affairs of the states and the prohibition of using force in international affairs.