Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:36:16.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Haiti and the Validity of International Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

W. Michael Reisman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In December 1990, after decades of dictatorship, the Haitian people overwhelmingly elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Every aspect of the election was monitored by international organizations and confirmed as “free and fair.” Within months, the army, an ill-trained force of some five thousand men, seized power, expelled Aristide, and brutally suppressed popular protest. The Organization of American States and the United Nations Security Council condemned the coup and its aftermath and ordered economic sanctions to dislodge the military. The sanctions failed. On July 31, 1994, the Security Council, acknowledging the gravity of the situation and recognizing that an “exceptional response” was required, passed Resolution 940, authorizing military action. The legality and wisdom of Resolution 940 has been criticized on the following grounds.

Type
Agora: The 1994 U.S. Action in Haiti
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 82 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On international monitoring of the Haitian election of December 16, 1990, see Georges A. Fauriol, Inventing Democracy: The Elections of 1990, in The Haitian Challenge: U.S. Foreign Policy Considerations 53, 57 (Georges A. Fauriol ed., 1993); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report, 1990–91, at 468, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79, rev.1 (1991). For U.S. reaction and assessment, see Howard W. French, Haitians Overwhelmingly Elect Populist Priest to the Presidency, N.Y. Times, Dec. 17, 1990, at A1; Haiti’s Choice, and Father Aristide’s, N.Y. Times, Dec. 18, 1990, at A24; Haiti’s First Freely Elected Leader, Wash. Post, Dec. 20, 1991, at A23. On international election monitoring in general, see W. Michael Reisman, International Election Observation, 4 Pace U. Y.B. Int’l L. 1 (1992).

2 SC Res. 940 (July 31, 1994), reprinted in N.Y. Times, July 31, 1994, at A6.

3 A concise, early statement of this now-accepted position appears in Myres S. McDougal & W. Michael Reisman, Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern, 62 AJIL 1 (1968). The subject receives exhaustive consideration in Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Collective Responses to Illegal Acts in International Law. United Nations Action in the Question of Southern Rhodesia (1990).

4 See generally W. Michael Reisman, Coercion and Self-Determination: Construing Article 2(4), 78 AJIL 642 (1984); Panel, The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force: Is Article 2(4) Still Workable?, 78 ASIL Proc 68 (1984).

5 There are many accounts of events under the revolutionary Bishop and New Jewel regimes in Grenada that precipitated the U.S. invasion. See, e.g., The Grenada Papers (Paul Seabury & Walter A. McDougall eds., 1984); ABA Section of International Law and Practice, Report of the Committee on Grenada 1–11 (1984). For differing evaluations of the legality of U.S. action in Grenada, see, e.g., The United States Action in Grenada, 78 AJIL 131 (1984).

6 The human rights abuses under General Noriega have been well documented. See Amnesty International USA, Panama: Assault on Human Rights (1988); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Panama, OEA/Ser.L/V.II.76, doc. 16, rev.2 (2d ed. 1989). One general account of Noriega’s rise and rule is in Michael L. Conniff, Panama and the United States: The Forced Alliance 140–72 (1992). For assessment of the legality of the U.S. invasion under international law, see Abraham D. Sofaer, The Legality of the United States Action in Panama, 29 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 281 (1991) (arguing that U.S. invasion was legal); Louis Henkin, The Invasion of Panama Under International Law: A Dangerous Precedent, id. at 293 (arguing that U.S. invasion violated international law). Other assessments are gathered in Agora: U.S. Forces in Panama: Defenders, Aggressors or Human Rights Activists?, 84 AJIL 494 (1990).