[Maarten Van Horenbeeck] [International Relations and Political Science]



Literature Review: Root causes of Humanitarian Intervention -a Responsibility to Protect?

Maarten Van Horenbeeck
maarten@daemon.be


Introduction

This paper conducts a literature review of papers that contribute to our understanding of the root causes leading up to humanitarian intervention, and in particular "humanitarian military intervention", defined by Hubert and Bonser as "the use of nonconsensual military means to fulfill humanitarian objectives" (Hubert, Bonser, 2001) in intra-state conflicts.

The selection of papers was performed by conducting a general database search for articles on the topic of humanitarian intervention, and the factors contributing to the intervention decision. Based on initial readings, I then decided to focus on the framework around "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), "the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe - from mass murder and rape, from starvation - but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states" (Evans, Sahnoun, 2001).

One paper, Aidan Hehir's "The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect", was retained as it performed a historical, qualitative analysis comparing the consideration of R2P among intervention cases, both preceding and following the introduction of the legal framework. One other article, Liliana Jubilit's "Has the 'responsibility to Protect' been a real change in humanitarian intervention" was selected for its qualitative analysis of the development of international R2P law and doctrine.

However, this review embarks on its journey with one article which falls slightly outside of the area of pure R2P. Seung-Whan Choi's "What determines US humanitarian intervention" reviews US humanitarian intervention to evaluate whether the intervention decision was driven by realist requirements -protection of hard state power- or inspired by liberal thoughts -in defense of liberty. Though R2P did not manifest itself in international law for much of the timeframe the papers covered, it illustrates that the thoughts underlining the R2P definition above have historically contributed to decision making, at least in the United States.

Keywords: Humanitarian intervention, Responsibility to Protect

Humanitarian intervention and its causal factors

Choi, in "What determines US humanitarian intervention" developed one of the few quantitative analyses I could identify on the reasons behind humanitarian interventions conducted by the United States. He studied correlation between oil production, number of alliances and geographical distance, as "previous studies have often identified them as key realist variables" (Choi, 2013), against US humanitarian intervention, and found no significant correlation.

Choi's approach is quantitative, and reviews a set of 153 countries over the period of 1981 through 2005. In addition to the variables above, Choi also selected four control variables: democracy, economic development, regime durability and Post- Cold War. Strong negative correlation between these and intervention would increase the likelihood that intervention took place to promote liberal ideals- development of democracy, stimulating economic development or stabilization of a regime. His fourth control variable is based on Binder, who found that "the international community has clearly responded to more crises since the end of the Cold War than it had in the past" (Binder, 2009). Choi's approach is comprehensive, leveraging research datasets to apply uniform definitions across his timeline He concludes that humanitarian intervention was driven to a greater degree by liberal objectives than realist ones. Though he does not make this explicit in his study, this outcome appears to support the acceptance of the underlying motivations behind R2P.

In "The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect", Aidan Hehir provides an assessment of the causative effect R2P had on humanitarian intervention in Lybia. He evaluates Resolution 1973, at the time heralded as a declaration of the responsibility of the international community to protect citizens when such protection is not rendered by their host government, and even confirmed in such light by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. As one main finding, he flags that "while Resolution 1973 certainly coheres with the spirit of R2P, it is noteworthy that the resolution does not mention this subsidiary responsibility, nor does Resolution 1970" (Hehir, 2013).

In fact, Hehir finds that more than a policy of "protecting individual citizens" of an intra-state conflict, there was significant inconsistency in the way Resolution 1973 was both described and supported, and that "R2P has possibly become one factor in the decisionmaking calculus of states, but it is one among a great many—a loud voice in a large, disparate, chanting crowd." (Hehir, 2013).

Hehir takes a qualitative approach to reviewing R2P over time, studying public discourse by the United Nations and main stakeholders such as the United States, Russia and China. As a variable, he selects the use of the Chapter 7 powers of the United Nations Security Council, and finds their application inconsistent, which he attributes to the fact that the "powers of the P5 constitute "a discretionary entitlement", still driven by national interests.

His selection of cases is small, consisting of an intentional selection of humanitarian intervention cases involving Chapter 7 powers throughout recent history. His analysis is more experimental- comparing different aspects of various intervention cases- in some cases focusing more on the quality of the internal state (Haiti), in other cases on the protection offered by the state to its citizens (Southern Rhodesia). Typical of qualitative research is that these cases were selected in such a way that they "match the experimental situation (Libya, ed.) as closely as possible" (Schimmelfennig, 2013).

Liliana Jubilit, in "Has the 'responsibility to Protect' been a real change in humanitarian intervention', reviews the history behind R2P, and how it was developed, on insistence of the UN Secretary General, by the ICISS. She finds that R2P was for the first time utilized in resolution 1970, though also signals its reflection on the national responsibility of governments, identified by Hehir. She sees this as a positive sign that R2P is seeing some adoption, given "it is ground breaking as it uses the expression "responsibility to protect" in a specific case, given that paragraphs mentioning the international community's 'responsibility to protect' have been deleted, placed on the preamble or completely absent from previous SC resolutions, even with over a dozen situations or crisis that were recognised as reaching the threshold of the R2P hypotheses." (Jubilit, 2012).

Jubilit flags that in the later conflict in Syria, R2P was not applied, indicating inconsistent application of the R2P doctrine in the UN system. She determines that "is a valuable effort in trying to reconcile the concepts of sovereignty and human rights", and that it is "in the ethical perspective that the R2P brings its bigger contribution to the debate of humanitarian intervention and in the attempt to solve the legality and legitimacy issues that go with it." (Jubilit, 2012).

Jubilit takes a similar qualitative approach to Hehir, but only studies one case, Lybia, in depth. She uses the case of Syria merely to illustrate inconsistent application of R2P. Instead, she dives deep into the legal framework of R2P, and evaluates its application to the Libyan conflict. Rather than studying a wide set of cases, she reviews R2P theory and aims to establish it as a sufficient condition for the outcome she sees in the Libyan intervention,. She acknowledges the various difficulties that impacted its implementation, from an ethical, legal and sovereignty perspective.

Conclusion

This literature review covered three papers which each investigate the causal factors to the decision to conduct a humanitarian intervention from a different perspective.

It leverages Choi to show that the ideals behind R2P are not necessarily new, and affected humanitarian military intervention even when the UN framework was not yet in place to support it. Jubilit's article showed us the legal framework developed in the United Nations to provide support to human beings were not appropriately protected by their host government. Aidan, with his qualitative review of the implementation of R2P in Libya, shows that the situation is more complex than a simple attribution to either realist or idealist objectives, and that a legal framework can go only so far when intervention is still an 'elected option' for Security Council members to pursue, as opposed to a true 'responsibility'.

This literature review shows how quantitative analysis was able to draft an overall view of the reasons behind humanitarian intervention and qualitative analysis allows us to explore more deeply the social drivers behind these longer term trends. The qualitative studies in particular show how the application of R2P, as well as the concept of sovereignty, are dynamic between several test cases, resulting in different decisions to intervene in Libya, Haiti, Somalia or Syria respectively.

Reference list

Binder, Martin. 2009. "Humanitarian Crises and the International Politics of Selectivity", Human Rights Review, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 327-348

Choi, Seung-Whan, 2013 "What determines US humanitarian intervention?", Conflict Management and Peace Science 30(2) pp. 121-139.

Hehir, Aidan, 2013. "The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect". International Security, Volume 38, Number 1, Summer 2013, pp. 137-159

Hubert, D, Bonser, M, 2001 "Humanitarian Military Intervention". Carleton University Press: Ottawa. Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace. pp. 111

Jubilut, Liliana L, 2012. "Has the 'Responsibility to Protect' Been a Real Change in Humanitarian Intervention? An Analysis from the Crisis in Libya", International Community Law Review Ed. 14, pp. 309-335.

Sahnoun, M, Evans, G, 2001. "The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty". Retrieved December 8 th , 2013 from http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf.