<p>Abstract</p><p>This essay has as its purpose to discuss the current legal regulation of the concept of humanitarian intervention. The inconsistencies in the debate over the legal status of this concept, and the legal uncertainty it brings to the acts of states and the lives of their nationals is a motivating factor for the writing of this essay. However, it has been clear from the outset that the concept of humanitarian intervention is intricately connected to political and moral ideas and values. Thus, the attitude taken towards this doctrine will be highly dependent on the perspectives of the state, government or single author representing it.</p><p>Following this starting point, the aim of this essay is not to present a single answer as to whether humanitarian intervention is, or is not, legal, but to research, compare and analyze the different arguments put forward in this subject in international law today. Hopefully, this will provide the reader of this essay with some insight into the sources of international law of today and how the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition of force and the protection of human rights relate to the concept of humanitarian intervention.</p><p>A frank overview of the UN Charter does not support use of force except in the case of self-defence or without a Security Council mandate. Because of the unique character of the Charter and the UN system itself, any interpretation of the Charter will have to consider not only the letter of the Charter but its founding purposes and principles, as well as its function and tasks in international society today. Taking into account this wider perception of the Charter, there have been propositions to interpret the key articles and principles on the use of force in the Charter in such a way that the concept of humanitarian intervention completely circumvents the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. This interpretation, however, has been rejected by the currently most authoritative writers in international law and has received a, to say the least, mixed support among the community of states. The main reason for this is that such an interpretation of the Charter overlooks the travaux preparatoires of the Charter as well as the purposes and functions of the UN, and would produce a result contrary to the peace-building aims of the UN.</p><p>As regards the state practice connected to the relevant regulations of the UN Charter, this essay has shown that the consistency, generality and uniformity of this practise is not sufficient to conclude that a new interpretative regime has been accepted by the states that would allow for humanitarian intervention beyond what is provided for today by the explicit support of the UN Charter. Neither has the claims of a customary rule allowing humanitarian intervention, independent of the rules of the UN Charter, been proved to exist as a result of consistent state practice and an accompanying opinio juris. Still, states have been seen to resort to the use of force claiming a right to humanitarian intervention, and there is recognition of such a doctrine in the writing of several authors. This perception may partly be a consequence of the American dominance in the writing on the subject, and the selectivity that such a limited perspective brings to the overview of the legal position of humanitarian intervention. However, there is proof in the practice of the UN and the instruments concluded by states within the UN system of a new perspective of the state and its responsibility towards its own citizens. Coupled with the emergence of human rights instruments within the UN, there is a possibility that this perspective will bring changes in the values and workings of the UN system and the community of states as a whole. This change may perhaps in the future allow for a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme humanitarian distress.</p><p>However, the risks of misuse of such a new right, as well as the difficulties of formulating a set of criteria for this doctrine that would encompass the will and interests of all states demand that such a development, however mindful of the urgency of the human suffering necessary to counter with such a doctrine, will have to take its time and be conducted with great care to produce a sustainable result.</p>

Abstract This essay has as its purpose to discuss the current legal regulation of the concept of humanitarian intervention. The inconsistencies in the debate over the legal status of this concept, and the legal uncertainty it brings to the acts of states and the lives of their nationals is a motivating factor for the writing of this essay. However, it has been clear from the outset that the concept of humanitarian intervention is intricately connected to political and moral ideas and values. Thus, the attitude taken towards this doctrine will be highly dependent on the perspectives of the state, government or single author representing it. Following this starting point, the aim of this essay is not to present a single answer as to whether humanitarian intervention is, or is not, legal, but to research, compare and analyze the different arguments put forward in this subject in international law today. Hopefully, this will provide the reader of this essay with some insight into the sources of international law of today and how the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition of force and the protection of human rights relate to the concept of humanitarian intervention. A frank overview of the UN Charter does not support use of force except in the case of self-defence or without a Security Council mandate. Because of the unique character of the Charter and the UN system itself, any interpretation of the Charter will have to consider not only the letter of the Charter but its founding purposes and principles, as well as its function and tasks in international society today. Taking into account this wider perception of the Charter, there have been propositions to interpret the key articles and principles on the use of force in the Charter in such a way that the concept of humanitarian intervention completely circumvents the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. This interpretation, however, has been rejected by the currently most authoritative writers in international law and has received a, to say the least, mixed support among the community of states. The main reason for this is that such an interpretation of the Charter overlooks the travaux preparatoires of the Charter as well as the purposes and functions of the UN, and would produce a result contrary to the peace-building aims of the UN. As regards the state practice connected to the relevant regulations of the UN Charter, this essay has shown that the consistency, generality and uniformity of this practise is not sufficient to conclude that a new interpretative regime has been accepted by the states that would allow for humanitarian intervention beyond what is provided for today by the explicit support of the UN Charter. Neither has the claims of a customary rule allowing humanitarian intervention, independent of the rules of the UN Charter, been proved to exist as a result of consistent state practice and an accompanying opinio juris. Still, states have been seen to resort to the use of force claiming a right to humanitarian intervention, and there is recognition of such a doctrine in the writing of several authors. This perception may partly be a consequence of the American dominance in the writing on the subject, and the selectivity that such a limited perspective brings to the overview of the legal position of humanitarian intervention. However, there is proof in the practice of the UN and the instruments concluded by states within the UN system of a new perspective of the state and its responsibility towards its own citizens. Coupled with the emergence of human rights instruments within the UN, there is a possibility that this perspective will bring changes in the values and workings of the UN system and the community of states as a whole. This change may perhaps in the future allow for a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme humanitarian distress. However, the risks of misuse of such a new right, as well as the difficulties of formulating a set of criteria for this doctrine that would encompass the will and interests of all states demand that such a development, however mindful of the urgency of the human suffering necessary to counter with such a doctrine, will have to take its time and be conducted with great care to produce a sustainable result.

<p>Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna.</p><p>Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans.</p> / <p>The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions.</p><p>One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.</p>

Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna. Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans. / The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions. One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.