Unauthorized Humanitarian Intervention

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In this essay, I offer a utilitarian perspective on humanitarian intervention. There is no generally accepted precise definition of the term ‘humanitarian intervention’. I will provisionally, and roughly, define humanitarian intervention as the use of force by a state, beyond its own borders, that has as a purpose or an effect the protection of the human rights of noncitizens or the reduction of the suffering of noncitizens.

From a utilitarian perspective, there is likely to be a deficit of humanitarian intervention in any state-based system, just as there is likely to be a deficit of foreign aid. Political organizations such as states care far more about the welfare of their own members than they care about the welfare of nonmembers. States often have the opportunity to reduce massive suffering among foreigners at comparatively small cost to their own citizens, but they fail to do so.

Besides this inevitable particularism, another factor works to limit humanitarian intervention: anti-intervention norms in international law and international politics. Even if a state were willing to spend its treasure and risk the lives of its citizens for the sake of foreigners, it might refrain from doing so because of these norms.

There is an exception to the anti-intervention norms in international law and politics. Any humanitarian intervention that is authorized by the United Nations Security Council has enormous legal and political legitimacy.