International Law and the Responsibility to Protect: The Legal and Theoretical Basis for International Intervention in Nigeria

Abstract

One of the primordial aims of international law is to foster international co-operation, peace, security and amicable relations among nations of the world. Internal conflicts, however, continue to pose threat to the international order and development globally. Consequently, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle has recently gained recognition as an emerging norm of international law that enjoins the international community to intervene when countries fail to protect their populations from mass atrocity crimes — namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. One of the key foundations of the emerging R2P norm is the principle of intervention which allows international action whenever it is necessary and justifiable to reduce or resolve internal conflict among the constituent States of the world. Despite the growing application of the norms of intervention in international law, their practical implementation and effects have been received with mixed feelings. There are especially, questions whether interventions really aid or hinder international peace and security although it seems acceptable as it seeks to avert apparent helpless situations. This paper, therefore, examines the imperatives of intervention on internal conflicts and the continued relevance of the norms in international law given the international intervention in Nigeria in response to the Boko Haram conundrum and other conflicts. It argues that although intervention is appropriate as it were, it should be properly regulated to ensure that it is not used as a tool to jeopardize sustainable development in developing nations such as Nigeria.