Humanitarian intervention revisited: Post‐cold war responses to classical problems

Abstract

Ever since the idea of humanitarian intervention was born in the minds of pre‐Westphalian writers like Grotius, Gentili and Suárez, it has been disputed in the theory and practice of international relations on the grounds that it threatens the institutional bases of international order. But just how serious are the problems of humanitarian intervention, and will they prove to be fatal for the early post‐Cold War experiment with military humanitarianism? To answer these questions this article offers a distinction between ‘systemic’ problems threatening the working of international society, and operational problems threatening the successful implementation of the given intervention. While the traditional fear of undermining international order should not be taken to be a decisive argument against a right of humanitarian intervention, the recent attempts to realize the ideals of humanitarianism have in some cases been severely plagued by operational problems like military stalemate and poor humanitarian results. Thus, when dealing with serious humanitarian crises like the recent ones in Somalia and Bosnia, the cautious approach of extended peacekeeping appears to be a poor substitute for the Grotian ideal of full‐blown humanitarian intervention in defence of the suffering.