Index IntroductionThe issue of abuseThe fatal issue of the current lack of supportConclusionIntroductionStates should be allowed to use military force to put an end to widespread and serious human rights violations in other States, regardless of whether the State consents, firstly on the basis that human rights should take priority over sovereignty for the sake of justice and fairness and, secondly, the issue of abuse, which is the second larger form of opposition, can be addressed using rigorous procedural requirements. Furthermore, although the law has so far no legal basis, it could still develop through customary international law, as there is evidence of the development of the opinio juris element and as the Security Council veto issue will not be resolved anytime soon, it is possible that more and more people will agree that humanitarian intervention is de lege feranda and that the law could become the third exception to the prohibition on the use of force. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay First, the right to humanitarian intervention without the consent of the State whose territory is crossed should exist despite its potential interference with the doctrine of sovereignty, as human rights, the second most important purpose of the United Nations after peace should have priority. Although state “sovereignty”, the main form of opposition to the right, is an essential doctrine in international law, ensuring protection from territorial invasion and protection of human rights is equally, if not more important, especially from a utilitarian perspective considering the current viridity of human rights violations. Examples include North Korea, where political opponents are tortured and imprisoned, and Yemen, where there are indiscriminate attacks against civilians by the military. To provide “happiness” to the greatest number of people human rights must be protected, since when they are violated “reverse” pain and unhappiness is created, which is what utilitarianism seeks to prevent. Despite the efforts of the United Nations to achieve this secondary goal, through supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, enforced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and providing aid, the United Nations cannot claim to be successful. Their most obvious failure is their peacekeeping efforts in the two violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention: the genocide in Rwanda (Akayesu) and the genocide in Srebenica, Bosnia (Radislav Krstic), which made the creation of this right a much more pressing issue. The UN is the only body legally authorized to intervene with force in accordance with Article 2(4), which has greatly contributed to world peace and, consequently, the UN also has the responsibility to intervene when states that have agreed to be bound by the Charter are violating it. , in accordance with the rule of law. The UN was then held responsible for allowing the deaths of 800,000 people in Rwanda by failing to prevent or mitigate the genocide. The independent report on the Rwandan genocide cited the lack of “political will” on the part of the Security Council allowing the use of force and the “chronic lack of resources” as the main causes of the catastrophic failure. Academician Piiparina noted that the cost-effective approach of the UK and US has resulted in “serious shortages in terms of equipment,personnel, training, intelligence and planning”. The same mistakes of lack of weapons and political will occurred in Srebenica, Bosnia, just one year later. The lack of Security Council “consensus” preventing the use of force continues to be a problem, with Russia having used its veto 14 times since 2011, preventing further action in its ally state Syria. despite over 400,000 deaths. Therefore, whether or not the UN permits the use of force depends entirely on the “bias” of a particular Member States of the Council at that time, whether they have “sympathy” for the victims, or whether they have sympathy for the oppressors , as in the case of Russia's relationship with Syria. To truly protect human rights, unilateral humanitarian intervention should be permitted, regardless of its potential interference with state sovereignty, since interference is justified to prevent pain and save lives. Furthermore, it can be argued that the creation of a right to humanitarian intervention does not interfere with the doctrine of sovereignty at all, since the sovereignty of a state that attacks its own people should be considered lost. According to popular sovereignty in the West, "the people govern", which is the very foundation of democracy. Without the support of the people, a state should not be considered sovereign, since it is not “legitimate”. Furthermore, a state that denies human rights to its citizens is not just. The academic Rawls stated that the first principle of justice in society is that “every person has the same inalienable right to a fully adequate scheme of equal fundamental liberties”. A society that denies fundamental rights to a minority group or to any law-abiding citizen can never be considered just. Furthermore, it cannot be considered right that a state that refuses to stop or prevent genocide should be protected by sovereignty. Sovereignty prevents external intervention in situations, despite the fact that there is “no moral difference” between the state where the violations occur sending troops and another state sending them across the border to save lives. Sovereignty therefore only protects the oppressor, and any justice that comes after a massacre does not do justice to those whose deaths could have been avoided if the United Nations had fulfilled its obligation to protect human rights because the Security Council cannot reach an agreement. More focus needs to be placed on preventing mass deaths for the United Nations to become a body that can truly be considered capable of protecting human rights. Therefore, there should be the right to humanitarian intervention, even when the state does not consent, as human rights should take priority over sovereignty. Second, the right to humanitarian intervention should exist because the potential for abuse is believed to be overestimated. . Many of those who oppose humanitarian intervention do so based on the perception that “humanitarian intervention will inevitably be abused.” This fear was generated above all after the intervention in Libya, since for many "it demonstrated that the requirement of authorization to use force... is not sufficient to guarantee that the right to intervene is not abused by powerful states to pursue their own ideology". and selfish goals." States fear that other powerful states will use the right of humanitarian intervention for economic and political gain, exploiting the country they saved. The Russian ambassador, in particular, underlined that NATO's unauthorized intervention had created a "dangerous precedent... which could cause serious destabilization... in...global level". However, “it is widely believed that Russia and China overestimated the danger of abuses and hindered necessary international action” and that the pair were “fiercely condemned” for their repeated refusals to allow further humanitarian interventions in Syria, diminishing credibility of their complaints. The possibility of abuse certainly exists, but it is believed to have been exaggerated by those who wish to prevent others from interfering in their affairs, such as China's treatment of its Uighur population. Furthermore, by adopting a model similar to the right of self-determination, the defense, of which there has already been a "repeated misappropriation", should also prevent and punish abuses. For a state to legally resort to self-defense, an armed attack and a proportionate response are necessary. Or, if no attack has yet occurred, the application of the usual Caroline test; “it will be up to the government to demonstrate an immediate, overwhelming need for self-defense, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation… nothing unreasonable or excessive.” The threshold for humanitarian intervention may be mass human rights violations that the state refuses or is unable to stop. Using the proportionality principle of jus ad bellum, “if the force used is proportionate to the legitimate purposes of the use of that force” ensures that any abuse is punished, since whenever a State has an ulterior motive, the force used does not it is proportionate. While ulterior motives are not always obvious, whenever a right is cited a task force could be assembled to observe the state's actions as their conduct would demonstrate the truth. The abuse would then be punished by the International Court of Justice, as is the abuse of self-defense, since "justice absolutely requires formal equality" which is ensured by the equal application of the law to all States, as in Nicaragua-United States case. The court found that the United States violated its common law obligation not to use force against another state and was ordered to pay reparations. The United States did not receive any special treatment, regardless of its superpower status. Therefore, the issue of abuse can be addressed using strict procedural requirements, which when violated can be punished by the ICJ, and therefore the abuse does not entirely nullify the right to humanitarian intervention. The fatal issue of the current lack of support Although issues of sovereignty and abuse can be countered, there is currently no right to humanitarian intervention in the lex lata and considering the vast majority of States that oppose such a right, the Group of 77 and China, it is highly unlikely that one will develop in the immediate future. If law were ever to develop, it would most likely be through customary international law. A “common, consistent and concordant” state practice would be required according to the 1972 UK v. Iceland case, an absence of substantive consensus after Nicaragua v. United States. This practice may occur in the future if the Security Council veto continues to remain a problem, as there has been no show of support for the 5 permanent members of the Council not to use their veto in the face of mass human rights violations , humanitarian intervention will continue to be de lege feranda due to the Security Council's stalemate and consequent inaction in the face of humanitarian crises. Furthermore, it is arguable that the necessary opinio juris outlined in the North Sea Continental case is already manifesting itself, as it is.