The time is ripe for a re-examination of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and in particular, of its legal basis in international law. This thesis attempts to draw attention to the significance of the decision to justify humanitarian intervention in a certain way, and to some of the implications of that decision. / The thesis compares the two justificatory options which seem to be most appropriate to the multilateralism of the post-Cold War era: collective humanitarian intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and mulitilateral humanitarian intervention under customary international law. It reviews recent state practice, arguing that a mulitilateral right to intervene for the protection of human rights is emerging at custom. / After critically analysing humanitarian intervention's justification under the Charter, the thesis concludes that the better way to justify the doctrine, both in principle and in practice, is under customary law.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:QMM.26196 |
| Date | January 1993 |
| Creators | Ewing, Michelle. |
| Contributors | Toope, S. J. (advisor) |
| Publisher | McGill University |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Coverage | Master of Laws (Institute of Comparative Law.) |
| Rights | All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. |
| Relation | alephsysno: 001482560, proquestno: MM94551, Theses scanned by UMI/ProQuest. |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds