... defines who has the right to authorize military intervention.
Criterion 6: Right authority
It is rather important to ensure that a military intervention is legitimate and has broad support from the international community. The United Nations Security Council is the only international body that should represent the world’s voice and make decisions with binding force. But the politicization of the Security Council sometimes prevents it from making just decisions that could save lives....
... – intervention is different from full scale war. Proportional means would put a constraint on the use of force, which should be minimized during humanitarian interventions.
Coupled with proportional means, a clear mandate authorized by the UN Security Council containing detailed instructions on what exactly can and cannot be done on the ground will manage the expectations of all parties to the conflict, reduce criticism, and assure more support among UN Member States. Governments that contribute ...
... genocide ended and even then it was restricted to mainly observing, monitoring, and ensuring that both parties to the conflict take measures to ensure the safety of civilians[1]. A massive military intervention was needed to halt atrocities, but the Security Council and UN Member States were incapable of responding to the realities on the ground.[2]
While on the other hand, we have Libya with 1,000 – 3,000 casualties and with coalition forces intervening in that country within 3 days of ...
... primary motivation for intervention (Right intention)
the international community can supply adequate means and the intervention will bring more good than harm (Proportional means and reasonable prospect)
the military intervention is authorized by the UN Security Council (Right authority)
Criterion 1: Last resort
The end goal of any conflict, including a military one, is to find a negotiated solution. Yet before military intervention is considered as an option we must first be sure that a negotiated ...
... decisively? Here, the UN mandate in Rwanda was restricted to mainly observing, monitoring and ensuring that both parties to the conflict take measures to insure the safety of civilians. A massive military intervention was needed to halt atrocities, but the Security Council and Member States were incapable of responding to the realities on the ground.
In contrast, we also have a case like Libya with 1,000-3,000 casualties and the Coalition forces intervening in the country within 3 days of adoption of ...
