BONUS LINK: My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here.
Is the UN Charter Relevant in the Twitterific Age of Intervention?
Is the UN Charter Relevant in the Twitterific Age of Intervention?
Both
liberals and realists would agree that there are scenarios that call for or
require intervention in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Speaking on the idea of collective
global security Kofi Annan said, “In our globalized world, the threats we face
are interconnected . . . whatever threatens one threatens all.” (Lauren, Craig,
George, 272). Annan overreaches in
his statement and it is in the application of the limitations and requirements
for intervention that realists and liberals disagree today. It is only in the reconciliation of
realist and liberal approaches that a system balancing restraint and freedom
can not only be developed, but most importantly applied. Most notably the international
community set out to do just this after World War II with the United Nations
(UN) Charter. While well
intentioned, this system has not changed in concert with advances in technology
or with the shift in the international balance of relative power.
A
key feature of the Westphalian Order, still largely in place today, is the
mutual respect for sovereignty among nation states. Although this respect is lessening, most states feel obliged
to provide a modicum of international legal justification before interfering in
another state’s domestic affairs and even name interventions with this in
mind. The U.S. dubbed their invasion
of Panama, “Operation JUST CAUSE.”
Realists focus on the autonomy, power, and security of sovereign state
actors and are invested in the modern state system and thus have a higher
bar. Nevertheless, one could see
realist support for the U.S. intervention in Pakistan in defense of Afghan sovereignty
and the aforementioned invasion of Panama based on the threat to the U.S. of
Noriega’s facilitating drug running into the United States. The liberal viewpoint, with its focus
on the interdependence of not only state actors, but also organizations and
institutions, and the promotion of human rights, provides to a large measure
the basis for the recent series of “humanitarian interventions” such as the
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and its most recent involvement in the Libyan
Civil War.
Thus
a realist might also favor intervention when it contributes to the
international balance of power and order.
Although there was an obvious ideological component to the U.S. policy
of containment during the Cold War, each side viewed challenges to its sphere
of influence as a zero-sum game exemplified by the 1983 U.S.-led invasion of
Grenada in response to what was viewed as the Soviet-backed, Cuban
militarization of the island. A
liberal might demand intervention in the same situation but for very different
reasons—namely because the intervention would enable the independence of the
people and the government (Nye, 169).
Although
imperfect in design and often execution, the UN Charter represents a pragmatic
reconciliation of the realist and liberal approaches and more importantly,
addresses both the limitations and obligations of states in intervention. The UN Charter sought to provide a
structure to address, evaluate and ratify (when applicable) calls for intervention. Specifically, Chapter VII (Action with
Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression)
does provide a single standard.
Article 39 states: “The Security Council shall determine the existence
of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall
make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain
or restore international peace and security.” The Security Council has a vested
interest in maintaining international balance of power, and the UN provides the
framework for nations to make decisions together. This framework and Chapter VII mandate does not encompass
intervening actions like public appeals by government leaders or officials. Nye describes this wide range of
possible actions that build from words to steel (Nye, 166-7). When “steel” is needed, Article 43
obligates all UN members to contribute as required, but sets a limit on this
contribution by including those members in UNSC’s decisions and by allowing them
to bring any economic problems to the UNSC as well. Although the charter has no real enforcement mechanism for
states that refuse to participate, the Charter is an improvement over the legal
framework of the League of Nations—as it better balances national sovereignty
with international legal obligations (and includes the U.S. as a member). Finally the charter is clear that
nothing “shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence” (UN Charter, Article 51).
This charter has been criticized, however, for taking too soft an
approach to human rights in favor of sovereign ones (Lauren, Craig and George,
76).
Although
the Charter limits U.N.-approved or sponsored intervention with fairly clear
criteria, these criteria have been more broadly applied during the late two
decades. Of late, the UN’s loose
interpretation of threats to “international peace and security” raises the
question of inconsistency. Why did it condone interventions in Iraq and Libya,
but does not intervene in China’s violent suppression of public dissent? This, of course, stems from China’s
veto power on the UN Security Council.
One contributing factor may be the 24-hour news cycle for which a closed
society like China’s is less vulnerable.
Today it is public opinion, forged by the continual bombardment of
images and information, which creates the impetus for action more so than any
rigorous evaluative series.
Without
a standard interpretation of Article 39, the UN must create a framework of
evaluation for intervention. First
and foremost, the tripwire to intervene must be when the internal threatens the
external—when the abuses occurring within a country affect the peace and
security of the international community.
It is at this juncture that the obligation must be separated from the
limitation. The international
community must agree to intervene but must embrace Huntington and ensure that
the intervention itself is regionally led. The application of sub-state theory is applicable here;
those countries in their region
can better understand their culture (strategic and otherwise), and are in the
best position to use soft power to affect change. That soft power traditionally has not been systematically
applied in this manner is perhaps why its effectiveness has been limited (Nye,
63-4). This regional intervention
combines the liberals’ focus on interdependence with the realists’ need for
power and security.
Although
flawed and in need of an update to reflect the modern international system, the
provisions on intervention in the UN Charter provide satisfactory resolution to
the tension between obligations and standards, or limits, on intervention. The Charter uses a liberal lens to
promote international peace and security while providing a realist mechanism to
implement said peace and security throughout the globe. Once must question, though, whether the
current trend toward humanitarian intervention can be sustained. As an increasing number of nations such
as Mexico show signs of devolving into failed states, the international
community will continue to be challenged to set boundaries on and provide
justification for intervening in what were considered until recently, purely
domestic issues within sovereign states.
The challenge is for the standards and means of intervention to fully
evolve with technology and the role of transparency. While certain factors like human nature remain timeless, the
24-hour news cycle is already quickly morphing into the 1,440 minutes (and one
day the 86,400 seconds) news cycle with a real-time global flow of news and reporting. The world must not pay mere lip service
to former Secretary General Daj Hammarskjöld’s comment that the “United Nations
reflects both aspiration and a falling short of aspiration. But the constant struggle to close the
gap . . . makes the difference between civilization and chaos.” (Lauren, Craig,
and George, 129). The struggle in
this case must be to keep pace with an increasingly interdependent world and to
intervene consistently and only when required.
Bibliography
