Forceful Intervention for Protection of Human Rights in Africa

Abstract

Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) obliges States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The formulation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter gives room to argue that military intervention for purposes of protecting human rights is not covered in the prohibition if it does not threaten the territorial integrity or political independence of a State, especially since promotion of human rights is one of the purposes of the UN under Article 1(3) of the Charter. However, the majority of commentators argue that the Charter prohibits any unilateral use of force and the travaux préparatoires leave no doubt that the terms ‘territorial integrity’ and ‘political independence’ were included not to qualify an absolute prohibition of the use of force but rather as intensifiers to emphasize the protection of States from acts of aggression. The purpose of inserting the phrase ‘or in any other manner inconsistent with’ in Article 2(4) was not to open the door to implicit exceptions from the rule but to make the prohibition watertight. Thus, Article 2(4) constitutes general prohibition of use of force in international law, subject only to the two exceptions outlined in the Charter: self-defense under Article 51 and chapter 7 enforcement action by the Security Council. Thus, except in self-defense, the use of force is the preserve of the Security Council. On this basis, any use of force to protect human rights in another State is subject to authorization of the Security Council.