IN TODAY鈥橲 globalised world, the tension between respecting national sovereignty and intervening in cases of rights violations has become a pressing issue in international relations. Sovereignty has historically been a pillar of global diplomacy, enshrined in the principle of non-intervention established after World War II to maintain stability. However, as crises like the Syrian civil war and the Rohingya genocide have showed, there are moments when the suffering of individuals within a state becomes so severe that the international community is compelled to act. This raises a critical question: when, if ever, should the international community intervene in internal affairs of a sovereign state to protect lives?
Sovereignty, deeply embedded in the United Nations charter and international law, holds that states have the right to govern their own affairs without external interference. This principle has long been viewed as crucial for maintaining the global order and preventing exploitation by external powers. However, authoritarian regimes have often invoked sovereignty as a shield to avoid accountability for mass rights abuses. In these instances, sovereignty becomes a tool for oppression rather than protection, leaving vulnerable populations without recourse. This has prompted the development of doctrines like the responsibility to protect, which suggests that sovereignty should not be an obstacle when global action is necessary to prevent atrocities.
Since 2011, the Syrian civil war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of death, millions of displacements and widespread atrocities, including chemical weapons attacks and the targeting of civilians. Despite clear evidence of mass rights violations, the international response has been ineffectual, hindered by the veto power of Russia and China at the UN Security Council. Their focus on respecting Syria鈥檚 sovereignty has resulted in paralysis, allowing Bashar al-Assad鈥檚 regime to continue with its brutal crackdown. While humanitarian organisations have provided aid, the lack of coordinated international intervention has prolonged suffering and set a dangerous precedent that undermines the global commitment to the responsibility to protect.
Similarly, the 2017 military campaign against the Rohingyas in Myanmar is another stark example of sovereignty being used to shield human rights abuses. Described by the United Nations as 鈥榯extbook ethnic cleansing鈥�, the military鈥檚 violence, including mass killings and forced displacement, left more than 700,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Yet, Myanmar鈥檚 government denied responsibility, and international intervention was blocked by China and Russia, both with vested interest in the region. While international condemnation was swift, it was not matched by meaningful action as the UN Security Council was paralysed by geopolitical considerations. This highlights the difficulty of reconciling the principle of state sovereignty with the need for intervention in the face of mass atrocities.
Critics of humanitarian intervention often point to the unintended consequences, such as the destabilisation seen in Libya following NATO鈥檚 intervention in 2011. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi鈥檚 regime left a power vacuum, leading to civil war, the rise of extremist groups and regional instability. Similar outcomes occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, where military interventions resulted in prolonged conflict and unforeseen humanitarian challenges. These cases underscore the complex dilemma of whether and when intervention is justified. Supporters of the responsibility to protect argue that military action should be a last resort, with priority given to diplomatic and non-military measures like sanctions, peacekeeping, and conflict prevention. However, even these measures often fail to ensure long-term peace and stability. Thus, while the moral imperative to intervene remains, the unpredictable consequences of military action raise crucial questions about balancing human rights protection with global stability.
Advocates for intervention argue that sovereignty should not shield governments committing atrocities against their citizens. The responsibility to protect, established by the United Nations in 2005, asserts that states have a responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. When a state fails in this duty, or worse, actively perpetrates such crimes, the international community has an obligation to intervene. The responsibility to protect rests on three pillars: a state鈥檚 responsibility to protect its people, the international community鈥檚 responsibility to assist and the responsibility to intervene when a state fails. While the responsibility to protect has been widely endorsed, its implementation has been inconsistent and, at times, manipulated for political gain. For example, geopolitical interests hindered intervention in Sudan and Syria, where the international community failed to act despite widespread atrocities. Nonetheless, the responsibility to protect has resulted in successful interventions, such as the 2011 UN peacekeeping mission in C么te d鈥橧voire, which helped to prevent further violence. This demonstrates that, when the political will exists, the responsibility to protect can be effective in protecting vulnerable populations.
However, the challenge remains: how can international law evolve to ensure more consistent and effective protection of human rights? The inconsistent application of the responsibility to protect underscores the need for clearer guidelines on when intervention is justified. Some have called for reforms to the UN Security Council, particularly the veto power of its permanent members, which often stalls intervention due to conflicting national interests. Additionally, there is growing support for empowering regional organisations, such as the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to take more proactive roles in addressing humanitarian crises within their regions. These organisations could be given greater legal authority and resources to intervene quickly and decisively, without being hindered by the geopolitics of the UN Security Council.
To address these challenges, international law may need to be reformed to establish clearer intervention frameworks, including mechanisms for rapid response to prevent mass atrocities. This could involve setting specific thresholds for intervention, such as large-scale displacement or evidence of genocidal intent, to ensure that actions are taken before situations reach a tipping point. The UN Security Council should be reformed to reduce paralysis caused by the veto power, enabling faster action during humanitarian crises. Regional organisations, such as the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, could be empowered to take the lead in intervening in cases of mass human rights violations within their regions, with the support of international law and institutions. Furthermore, accountability frameworks should be strengthened, ensuring that perpetrators of atrocities are held accountable through international criminal courts or tribunals.
The challenge, ultimately, is to find a balance between respecting sovereignty and ensuring that the international community can act decisively when human lives are at stake. Sovereignty must not be a shield for tyranny; the protection of human rights should take precedence. International law must evolve to reflect this reality, creating a system where sovereignty does not prevent the global community from stepping in to prevent atrocities. Reforming institutions like the United Nations Security Council, empowering regional organisations and establishing clear frameworks for intervention and accountability are key steps in this process. With the growing recognition of the moral and legal duty to protect vulnerable populations, there is hope for a future where human dignity is prioritised, and international intervention can be an effective tool in preventing mass atrocities.
听
Zaziratul Zannat is a public health scholar and humanitarian aid practitioner in a non-profit international organisation based in South Asia.
