International Security Dersi 4. Ünite Özet

Introduction

The UN enumerates peace operations as conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peacebuilding. The first one is an activity taking place before the conflict while the other four are carried out after the eruption of armed fighting. Conflict prevention comprises the employment of structural or diplomatic measures to prevent disputes from escalating into violent conflict. The second one, peacemaking, includes measures to address ongoing conflicts and usually comprises diplomatic action and mediation to bring hostile parties to a negotiated agreement. The peacekeeping, albeit sometimes used as an umbrella term covering all aspects of peace operations, comprises the basic principles which are impartiality; consent of the parties; non-use of force except in selfdefense and defense of the mandate. Peace enforcement involves the application of a range of coercive measures with the authorization of the UN Security Council. The last one, peacebuilding, comprises a range of measures targeted to reduce the risk of resuming the conflict by strengthening indigenous capacities to provide a basis for sustainable peace and development.

The Concept of Intervention

Intervention is an act of involvement, whether intentionally or not, in a difficult conflict situation to improve or prevent something getting worse. Intervention can take place in our daily life in many different forms and circumstances, which are regarded as peace operations, i.e. peacekeeping, peace-making, peace enforcement, peace building, through the official documents of United Nations.

There are three differing kinds of peace operations: traditional peace keeping (Cold War), humanitarian military intervention (1990s), and new generation peace operations (2000s) (Cottey, 2008: 429, 432).

The purpose of any intervention must be to help people to help themselves in almost universally accepted cultural norms. All human beings must be treated justly because they share a common human nature ordained to a set of specific goods. It is the violation of this universal order by some particularity that raises the issue of intervention (Phillips, 1996: 5). Intervention requires a maturity of judgement, an ability to maintain the essential dignity of the other while providing a self-effacing help.

The doctrine and understanding of “humanitarian” intervention, perhaps rightly so, has been widely criticized. Many argued that such notion represents a coercive mode of liberal imperialism of Western ideas and ideals. Western norms and understanding of international system and cultural rights were/are imposed onto other cultures of regions. In this way “humanitarian” associated ideas and arguments were used simply a rhetorical cover up for their implementation and practical use of traditional geopolitical understandings.

There is no consensus about whether interventions actually work, delay or exacerbate the problems that were aimed to be resolved as required. Interveners’ real intention of motivation might be also problematic to the parties. Was the intervention ever really possible to act solely for humanitarian, or any other political, economic, social, and/or cultural reasons? Moreover, should humanitarian intervention require a motivation? In fact, such arguments depend on whether an ethical system or legal issue is employed or not. Thus, it is simply a matter of consequences of an intervention conducted purely in the name of national self-interest that resulted in a “humanitarian” outcome could be classified as a “humanitarian intervention” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 2015).

An intervention might be conducted out of concern for human rights. Nevertheless, if it fails in its primary objective, then, there is a possibility that it could not be classified as humanitarian intervention. Such issues continue to drive the debates in the field of IR and International Law on what is “legitimate” and “necessary” for the humanitarian intervention.

Intervention and State Sovereignty

The approaches on resolution of disputes or conflict rely on two consecutive Chapters of UN Charter. One of them, Chapter VI, suggests pacifistic settlements of disputes involving negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Secondly, Chapter VII examines the situations which yield threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. Article 41 in Chapter VII outlines the measures of the interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations with these states threatening the security.

Potential interventions carried out by a member (or a coalition of members) of the UN against the interests and/or governing body of another member would create problems on legality of such interventions. The UN Charter grants the Security Council powers to take whatever measures it regards as necessary to reestablish international peace and security. If there is an act which is believed to threaten peace, security and order, then, the UN can empower directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members to rectify such an act.

However, the intervention could be interpreted as an attack against the sovereignty of a nation which is mostly agreed as a bedrock rule of an independent state. So, it engenders sovereignty versus intervention dilemma.

Legality of Intervention within the Sovereignty Concept

The sovereignty of a state is embodied by Westphalia Agreement, and it is reiterated and strengthened by Articles 2.1, 2.7, and 51 of the UN Charter. The sovereign entity should possess the following elements as stated in Article 2 (1-7) of the UN Charter: (1) every state is legally equal; (2) every state enjoys the rights and benefits inherent in full sovereignty; (3) every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity and sovereignty of other states; (4) the territorial integrity and political independence of a state are inviolable; (5) each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems; (6-7) each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in peace with other states within the UN system.

The claim of sovereignty within a bordered territory brought a powerful legitimizing factor with it for an incumbent ruling elite. Established entity of the elites might impose cultural, religious and political understandings using the state apparatus in a more systematic and efficient manner. As may be named under the notion of ‘nationalism’ becomes the claim that political power should reflect cultural homogeneity in every corner of the sovereign territory. Thus, nationalism extends and deepens the scope of sovereignty to require certain kinds of cultural, religious and social conformity and citizenship.

Sovereignty should be re-examined in a normative sense. If sovereign states systematically abuse the human rights of their citizens, “should they continue to enjoy those privileges of sovereignty or not?” is the growing question in International Law. This issue is at the heart of the debates over the past decades. It will continue to be a debate in the upcoming years as well; however, whether the humanitarian intervention will ever play a greater role in the International Law or not remains to be unclear yet.

The Blurring Lines of Sovereignty

A number of theorists, jurists and statesmen stipulated about the just intervention in throughout the history. One of the thinker, Walzer, classifies intervention into three cases as “(a) the breakup of a sovereign state caused by the secession of one faction from the rest; (b) where a country has already been invaded and third parties face the question of counter-intervention; (c) when the violation of human rights within a set of boundaries is so terrible that it makes talk of community or self-determination or arduous struggle seem cynical and irrelevant, that is, in cases of enslavement or massacre” (Walzer, 1977: 90).

There are also other views that rule out the substitution of foreign intervention for the internal struggle. It is opposed to intervention that the internal freedom of a political community should be won only by the members of that community. As individuals, political communities must seek their own freedom to cultivate their own virtue. These self-determination/virtue and liberty cannot be achieved by any external force/state. On the other hand, where people are under such massive oppression and/or are being massacred, international community/the UN is required to intervene due to severity of the situation.

The theory of self-determination reached its peak in the 1960s. The principle of self-determination reinforces absolute sovereignty in which non-intervention is a precondition of the full exercise of self-determination. The newly emerged understanding of intervention has changed the traditional understanding of self-determination and sovereignty. In the New World Disorder, the boundaries between domestic and international affairs became more blurred. The observance of fundamental human rights recognizes no national boundaries. Therefore, there was a shift in international public opinion in favor of intervention particularly on humanitarian grounds. This was exemplified as a stronger commitment to protection of human rights in Northern Iraq, Somalia, Liberia and in former Yugoslavia.

Humanitarian intervention is justifiable whenever/wherever for lack of an effective government, a country slides from order into anarchy, thus jeopardizing seriously first and foremost the lives of its citizens’ security and well-being. Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the public, as well as the international community, should intervene in the case of an authority abusing its powers to subject its citizens to chaotic and inhumane circumstances. As in Somalia and in Liberia in the past, in Syria at present peoples are killed indiscriminately and/ or to be subjected massive and systematic human rights abuses by their governments.

A conclusive moral assessment of humanitarian intervention is problematic due to the continuing evolution of its theory and practice. In the General Assembly and membership of the UN, equal sovereignty is clearly seen while the legalized hegemony of the Great Powers institutionalized in the veto rights of the Security Council. This is a synthesis from the previous stage of colonial and imperial history. Clearly, there is a shift taking place in international law and in the practice of nations regarding the various kinds of interventions. Nevertheless, public opinion about the implementation of the newly developed interventions is not clearly defined ad legalized in the UN. Intervention requires all institutions of civil order to have been broken down anarchy reigns, and the inhabitants suffer loss of rights and life due to the absence of civil society order. In such cases, restoration of civil order is morally/ legally required as intervention’s goal to some extent. People should be rescued from starvation and disease rather than simply to abandon them to a state of nature or to the form of government that led them into anarchy.

States and Intervention: New Forms of Intervention

The most important actors in the international system are states, whose primary objective and motive is to protect their sovereignty (Sönmezoğlu, 2005: 17-33). States endemically feel insecure in an anarchical world. Such feelings lead them to get more premiums on military power which also requires wealth and geopolitical advantage. It is believed that the more militarily powerful a state is, the more secure it is likely to be.

Security and Self-determination with Relation to Intervention

There are correlations between intervention and selfdetermination issues. In self-determination processes ‘the self’ is a problematic matter to solve. A number of groups are seeking to proclaim self-determination. Such stances create violence and political struggles between the dominant values of the co-existing community and that particular individual group. So, self-determination involves/creates conflict between two competing selves. Which one is the true self became a hot subject matter for international community to decide.

The former imperial powers unwillingly permitted colonized world to have their self-determination, which lacks lots of principles in both definition and applicability ( http://legal. un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html ). The newly emerged decolonized world’s autonomy, democracy, human rights, and the proper right to self-determination require the adoption of a more liberal and expansive interpretation of the meaning of self-determination. It should be noted that self-determination does not include irredentism, secession, and the violent renegotiation of territorial frontiers. It is rather the promotion of minority rights, devolution, federalism, and greater acknowledgment of the legitimacy of cultural selfexpression of individual groups. Practical misuse of selfdetermination creates an atmosphere for intervention.

Humanitarian Intervention from the Perspective of Responsibility to Protect

The report and its supplementary published by International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) are among the first studies on humanitarian intervention, and the concept of responsibility to protect is based on this report. One of the essential suggestions the commission agreed is that international actors have the ‘responsibility to protect’ people who live in dire conditions even in the situation of host government’s dissent. It approaches the question as “a duty to react to situations in which there is a compelling need for humanitarian protection”. So, ‘responsibility to protect’ not only means ‘responsibility to react’ but also means ‘responsibility to prevent’ and ‘responsibility to rebuild’ as well (The Responsibility to Protect, 2001: 17).

This responsibility lies, first and foremost, with each individual State, whose primary raison d’être and duty is to protect its population. But if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then the responsibility shifts to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods to help protect the human rights and well-being of civilian populations.

“Responsibility to protect” means “a duty to react to situations in which there is a compelling need for humanitarian protection”. The desire was to change “the discretionary ‘right to intervene’ into a more muscular ‘responsibility to protect’” (Shimko, 2010: 249; Pattison, 2010: 13).

International Organizations and Intervention: Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Missions

Although there are various classification initiatives of peace operations, the UN capstone document, “Peacekeeping Operations: Principle and Guidelines”, divides peace operations into five elements as conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peacebuilding. The first one, conflict prevention, also known as preventive diplomacy, is the endeavor taking place before the conflict while the other four activities are carried out after the eruption of armed fighting. It involves the utilization of structural or diplomatic measures to prevent intra-state or inter-state tensions and disputes from escalating into violent conflict (UN Peacekeeping Operations, 2008: 17).

The Spectrum of Peace Activities

Peacemaking includes measures to address ongoing conflicts and usually comprises diplomatic action and mediation to bring hostile parties to a negotiated agreement (UN Peacekeeping Operations, 2008, p.17). Yet, if the conflicting sides agreed, there might even be employed limited use of force to bring the armistice. The basic goals of peacemaking are to help ending armed conflict and organizing the conditions in the aftermath for the reconciliation of warring parties. It involves ‘the stationing of neutral, lightly armed troops with the permission of the host state(s) as an interposition force following a cease-fire to separate combatants and promote an environment suitable for conflict resolution’ (Diehl, 2008: 15).

Descriptive Figures on Peace Operations

Though peacekeeping operations commenced with the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in May 1948, 71 peacekeeping operations have been conducted by the authorization or mandate of the UN since then. With 57 of the peacekeeping operations having concluded, 14 of them are currently continuing in Africa (7), Middle East (3), Europe (2), Americas (1) and Asia (1) (UN Peacekeeping Operations, 2018).

There are also political missions engaged in conflict prevention, peacemaking and post-conflict peacebuilding managed by the Department of Political Affairs (DPA). It monitors and assesses global political developments to detect potential crises and develop effective responses. According to the UN data provided, there were 29 past operations established in Africa (16), Americas (6), Asia and Pacific (7) while there are 13 ongoing political and peace building missions deployed in Africa (7), Middle East (3), Asia (2), South America (1) (UN Department of Political Affairs, 2018). The majority of these political missions were founded in the last decade.

Considering the figures provided by the UN over the peace operations, the conclusion that peacebuilding operations or special political missions have been gaining momentum while peacekeeping operations have been decreasing relatively during the last decade could be drawn. It is also remarkable that the operations in Africa take the lead, and they are followed by the Middle East region regarding the figures of current operations.

Evolution of Peace Operations

The evolution of peace operations can be divided into three basic phases as the period before the League of Nations (antecedents), the League of Nations phase (novice attempts), and the current period beginning after the founding of the United Nations (maturity).

The Role of International Organizations in Interventions and Peace Operations

Current peace missions comprise various organizations which handle different aspects of peace activities. These could be composed in three configurations: certain actors may provide financing, logistics, etc. while others supply troops on the ground; one peace mission can perform certain duties in advance of different peacekeeping missions; joint mission might be carried out between international institutions (Diehl, 2008: 75-76). European Union (EU), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), African Union (AU), Organization of American States, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Organization of American States (OAS), NATO and the World Bank are among the main contributors of peace operations.

The Future of Peace Operations

The peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations, i.e. peace operations in the text, have evolved considerably because of various factors such as the changing nature of threats and conflicts, transformation in the international system and emerging new actors, developing humanitarian worries, and experiencing a number of organizational ineffectiveness. For example, civil conflicts have been occupying the world’s security agenda particularly after the end of Cold War. According to a report, 47 out of 49 active conflicts in 2016 occurred within states (SIPRI Yearbook, 2017: 2). So, peace operations have been increasingly conducted to address intra-state problems despite the risks concerning the breach of national sovereignty.

There is a surplus of factors undermining estimated prospect for future peace operations, because both the tangible and intangible issues have been changing. The actors providing security have been deepening as international system, state, social groups, individuals; while the issues, as well, have been widening to comprise political, military, environmental, social, and economic aspects. The question of “security for whom” has already been replied by the transformation from merely ‘the security of states’ to the ‘security of human beings’ and comprehensive security. So, the peace operations need to adapt and renovate itself to effectively response in a multidimensional and multileveled way.