Peaceful Settlement Of International Disputes Research Articles

Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

Disputes (disagreements) between States are an evitable part of international relations and have frequently led to armed conflicts. Under Article 2/3 of the UN Charter, all member States are obliged to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endanger. It is a natural corollary to the obligation of States to refrain from the threat or use of force as enshrined in Article 2/4 of the Charter of the United Nations, The maintenance of international peace and security has always been the major purpose of the International Law. It was the basic objective behind the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945. Since the direct cause of war and violence is always a dispute between States, it is therefore in the interest of peace and security that disputes should be settled. Methods and procedures for the peaceful (pacific) settlement of disputes have been made available in the International Law. The methods of peaceful settlement of dispute can be classified into three principal categories: diplomatic, adjudicative, and institutional methodologies

Aggression (crime against peace) in international public and criminal law

In the last two centuries, the world and humanity have changed more than ever. The rapid development of technology, but also socio-humanistic and political thought has led to a completely different perception of the world by people. The desire to spread influence, aided by technological development, has pushed the great powers into the bloodiest armed conflicts the world has ever seen. After the end of the First and Second World Wars, it proved necessary not only to sanction the leaders of the idea of aggressive war, but also to sanction the insult to the independence of countries through the armed attack. In this regard, the international community has approached a more detailed definition of the concept of aggression and crimes against peace (crime of aggression) and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms with the aim of preventing armed conflicts, stopping them and promoting peaceful settlement of international disputes. It is this idea that is the subject of the text that follows. The author wants to make his modest contribution to legal science in terms of analysis of the concept of aggression in international law (primarily in international public law), but also the definition and elements of (international) crime – crime against peace (aggression) in international criminal law. In addition to explaining and clarifying the content of the concept of aggression, the author will analyze this international crime contained in international documents, present the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to aggression, and explain the position and role of the United Nations in preventing armed conflict and peace. Finally, a critical analysis of all the above, the author will present the advantages and disadvantages of mechanisms for preventing armed conflict and punishing perpetrators of international crimes against peace through the prism of the amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

On the settlement of space- and international telecommunications -related disputes

This paper aims to describe and assess the dispute settlement mechanisms available to States in the context of space and telecommunications activities. Disputes either between private actors or between private actors and States are beyond the scope of this research. The choice to examine mechanisms and procedures for the settlement of international disputes in these specific areas stems from an elective affinity between these sectors, given the existing interaction between them. At a first level, the paper highlights the importance of mechanisms to prevent the creation of international disputes, both in the field of space law (mainly through Art. IX of the Outer Space Treaty) and in the field of international telecommunications (Arts. 45 para. 3, 48 of the ITU Constitution). Further, the general scheme of peaceful settlement of international disputes, as enshrined in the UN Charter not only applies to the disputes in question but is further specified in the context of space and telecommunications law (Liability Convention, Art. 56 of the ITU Constitution), with a clear orientation towards the use of diplomatic rather than judicial means of resolution. Last but not least, if the settlement of disputes through diplomatic means fails, the preferred judicial mechanism is that of arbitration, as it is clearly demonstrated by the Claims Commission of Art. XIV LIAB, the PCA “Optional Rules for Arbitration” of space disputes, the mechanism of Art. 41 of the ITU Convention as well as the relevant “Optional Protocol”. The specific options for dispute settlement show that, in view of the common interest of States in “international goods” of a technical nature, the actors involved are mainly interested in the non-occurrence of disputes rather than in their resolution through judicial means. And when they do so, they choose to resort to flexible resolution mechanisms (arbitration) rather than to ordinary international courts.

Military Activities or Law Enforcement Activities?: Reflections on the Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen

Abstract The interpretation of “disputes concerning military activities” under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rests on a sensitive balance between the protection of strategic interests of States and the need for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There, an essential issue arises how an adjudicative body acting under Part XV UNCLOS should assess the nature of conducts of State for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b). This issue was vividly raised in the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation with regard to the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. In this regard, both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the arbitral tribunal set out in accordance with Annex VII UNCLOS wrestled with this issue. This article examines the manner of the interpretation of the concept of the military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b) by comparing the approaches taken by ITLOS and the Annex VII arbitral tribunal.

The Place of Non-Aggravation in the Peaceful Settlement of Territorial and Maritime Disputes

The present paper argues that the ‘non-aggravation of disputes’ is a fundamental principle of international law. Evidence of the non-aggravation of disputes as a principle of international law has long existed in the work of qualified publicists and in numerous multilateral treaties with dispute settlement provisions, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. International courts and tribunals have indicated ‘non-aggravation measures’ to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and the rights of either party to the dispute. The principle of non-aggravation is gaining recognition and importance in the broader context of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, particularly territorial and maritime disputes which are often prone to armed escalation and pose risks to peace and security.

The Rule of Law in Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice

The concept of the rule of law is important both for the domestic law of States and in international law. In practice, some difficulties arise due to the lack of an accurate definition of its content. There is an opinion that it is easier to refer to this concept than to define its content. The problem is indicated in the documents of the United Nations (UN). The UN General Assembly resolution of 16 September 2005, in the section devoted to the rule of law principle, emphasizes the need for its universal observance and application both in national legal systems and in international law. The documents adopted under the auspices of the UN also highlight an important role played by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the implementation of this concept. Uniform and impartial application of law by the court is a reflection of the idea of the rule of law. All the activities of the ICJ as one of the main UN bodies serve to strengthen and promote this concept. By adopting decisions and advisory opinions, the Court contributes to clarifying and strengthening the influence of international law on relations between States. The development of the idea of the rule of law also affects activities of UN bodies, increasing predictability of their activities. In its practice, the ICJ gives it exceptional legitimacy and a broad scope of action, due to which the rule of law contributes to the implementation of the goals and principles of the UN. The Court’s contribution to the promotion of the concept is particularly noticeable in the framework of ongoing activities for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, clarification and dissemination of international law and its application on an equal basis to all subjects.

Research on the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a sovereign intergovernmental judicial body of the United Nations for the settlement of international disputes, and the jurisdiction of the ICJ, as one of the main means for the ICJ to exercise criminal jurisdiction, includes both contentious and advisory jurisdiction. Among them, the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is far less effective and influential than the contentious jurisdiction, but as a supplement to the contentious jurisdiction, it still has an important influence on the settlement of international disputes in the international field. In order to solve disputes in the international community and give full play to the role of international law, we need to continuously explore the realistic path to improve the advisory jurisdiction system of the ICJ. With our country, we can also promote the guarantee and realization of the advisory jurisdiction of the ICJ and promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes by increasing the degree of participation in the exercise of jurisdiction of the ICJ and playing the responsibility of superpowers.

International legal issues on biosafety: general overview

Objective: The legal concept and content of biosafety is discussed in the context of International Law. Biosafety issues are enumerated as part of a definition of concrete aspects related to responsibility of the states for using biological weapons. The latest trends in international law on ensuring the international biosafety are analysed. Legal issues concerning the definition of a just war are discussed in terms of international humanitarian law, the issues of fundamental principles in current international law (the principle of necessity governing the use of force, the right of states to self-defence in case of a bioattack, the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, arms control, and responsibility). The article presents an overview of new types of sovereignty such as biosovereignty, cyber sovereignty, and genomic sovereignty of states, along with the legal concept of international biocrime (genomocide), as well as classifications of bioterrorism, bioaggression, biopolitics and bioeconomics. Under current conditions, the importance of facilitating a broad interpretation of the concept of biosafety is emphasized.Methodology: The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.Results: Despite the prohibition of biological weapons, urgent issues, such as establishing an international control mechanism for monitoring the non-proliferation of biological weapons, remain. Moreover, the Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which entered into force in 1975, is yet to be fully adopted and / or ratified by all member states. Identifying certain types of biomedical research that should be banned according to generally accepted principles, the study concludes that the problem of banning these research activities has yet to be solved by some states. The concept of biosafety is interpreted broadly in terms of issues arising in relevant industrial processes. Biosecurity and biosafety are directly related to ensuring environmental security, marine security, food security and the security of outer space. Principles governing effective legal regulation for ensuring environmental, biological, and food safety are presented.

Problems of Biosafety in Current International Law

INTRODUCTION. The presented article is devoted to an extremely curious and, without exaggeration, urgent topic. The authors seek to understand the content and legal concept of biosafety in International Law. The researchers seek to list the biosafety issues in order to define concrete aspects related to responsibility of the States for using biological weapons. The authors analyze new legal trends on ensuring the international biosafety. The article is focused on legal issues by raising many questions about what should be considered a just war in the view of international humanitarian law, the issues of fundamental principles in current international law (the principle use of force, the right of States to self-defense in case of a bioattack, the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States, arms control, and responsibility). The writers give an overview of new types of sovereignty such as biosovereignty, cyber sovereignty, cyberbiosovereignty, and genomic sovereignty of States, the legal concept of international biocrimes (genomocide), the legal classification of bioterrorism, bioaggression, biopolitics, and bioeconomics. The authors consider the importance of facilitating the broad interpretation of the concept of biosafety.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.RESEARCH RESULTS. The authors found out that despite the prohibition of biological weapon there are still other urgent issues such as an international control mechanism for monitoring the non-proliferation of biological weapons has not been established yet. The Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) has not been adopted yet. The study concludes with an idea that the problem of banning certain types of biomedical research has not been solved in some States and at the international level. The authors note such important problems as the lack of an international control mechanism for monitoring the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons, as well as the threat to the safety of genomic research and confidentiality of genetic data. In this paper, we interpret the concept of biosafety rather broadly, considering the issues typical of allied industries. Biosecurity and biosafety are directly related to ensuring environmental security, marine security, food security and outer space security. The researchers paid attention to the issue of legal regulation of ensuring environmental, biological, and food safety. Due to this fact, it is hard to do so with regard to the causal link between the acts (bioterrorism) of state agencies, the violation of the principles of international law, standards of human rights and the consequences that occurred. It is not clear from the text of the BTWC Convention which international organ/body can investigate such acts in international affairs and which norm of international law directly should be applied.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Following a review of the content, the authors raise possible problems, strategies, suggestions and guidelines for ensuring biosafety in international law. The authors conclude that near future new categories of weapons of mass destruction appear in the world, moreover, genetic weapons should be classified as weapons of mass destruction, along with chemical, biological, bacteriological, and nuclear weapons. Technological developments will trigger the issues of fundamental principles in current international law. The authors came to the conclusion about extension of the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in case biological and genetic weapons are used. The authors encourage the complement to the international legal regulation the necessity to adopt a Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), establishing an international control mechanism for verifying prohibitions on the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons is obvious. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction adopted in 1993, which contains a mechanism for verifying compliance with the prohibitions of the Convention, can be considered a precedent for the effective regulation of the circulation of hazardous substances all over the world.

NIZOLARNI TINCH YО‘L BILAN HAL QILISH VOSITASI SIFATIDA XALQARO TERGOV KOMISSIYALARI TUZISHNING XALQARO-HUQUQIY ASOSLARI

At the beginning of the last century, international commissions of inquiry were initially created by States to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes. After the creation of the United Nations, International Commissions of Inquiry are formed in the international community in order to investigate crisis situations in the international arena, fully inform about cases of violations within the framework of international law and resolve issues of guilt of the perpetrators. At the same time, the activities of international investigative committees are increasingly necessary today to investigate and investigate situations related to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and human rights violations. In short, the commissions have become one of the institutions of international law to which they turn in order to investigate violations committed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. In turn, it is believed that the creation of commissions has its own legal basis in international law. In this article, the author scientifically substantiated the legal framework and effective activities for the creation of international investigative commissions. Comments were also made on the further development of this activity.

XALQARO NIZOLARNI TINCH YO‘L BILAN HAL ETISH VOSITASI SIFATIDA XALQARO TERGOV KOMISSIYALARI AHAMIYATI VA TUSHUNCHASI

At the beginning of the last century, international commissions of inquiry were initially created by States to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes. After the creation of the United Nations, International Commissions of Inquiry are formed in the international community in order to investigate crisis situations in the international arena, fully inform about cases of violations within the framework of international law and resolve issues of guilt of the perpetrators. At the same time, the activities of international investigative committees are increasingly necessary today to investigate and investigate situations related to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and human rights violations. In short, the commissions have become one of the institutions of international law to which they turn in order to investigate violations committed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. In turn, it is believed that the creation of commissions has its own legal basis in international law. In this article, the author scientifically substantiated the legal framework and effective activities for the creation of international investigative commissions. Comments were also made on the further development of this activity.

كلمة العدد (الإنجليزي)

The International Review of Law has always been a comprehensive scholarly platform for numerous legal studies, especially in terms of their visions and approaches, which reflect the cognitively disciplined and renewable legal thoughts. The International Review of Law reinforces the national law by being open to different legal systems regionally and internationally. The Review of Law serves as a stage for all readers with a passion for law. It has also updated its data on the DOAJ platform to reach the largest number of readers. The editorial board of the International Review of Law selected a number of research papers that respond to the standards of authentic and accurate scientific work in both Arabic and English. This issue contains nine high-quality scientific research, in addition to three book reviews. The first paper (Obeidat and Alfadel) evaluates “The Dominant Position and Its Impact on Competition within the Framework of Economic Concentration Processes – Analytical Study in the Jordanian and Qatari legislations.” While the second research paper (Al-Hababi) deals with the “Oppression versus Prosecution in Asylum Cases Under International Law & Municipal Laws.” The third research paper (Lamchichi) focuses on the topic of “Laws with Constitutional Provisions in the Qatari Legislation – An Attempt to Define the Concept.” As for the fourth research paper (Ali); It is concerned with “The Civil Liability of Judicial Experts - A Comparative Study in Qatari and French Laws.” While the fifth research paper (Noh and Sheha) addresses the topic of “Administrative Jurisdiction in Asylum Matters – A Comparative Study between French and Qatari Laws.” The sixth research paper (Reziq) is interested in “Claiming against the Guarantor; Its Time and Scope – Analytical study within Light of the United Arabian Emirates Civil Transactions Law.” The seventh research paper (Al-Khaldi) sheds light on “The Civil Liability of Companies Producing Vaccines and Medicines for Coronavirus (Covid-19).” While the eighth research paper (All-laymoon) focuses on “The Constitutional Status of the Crown Prince in the Jordanian Constitutional System- An Applied Comparative Study with the Qatari and Kuwaiti Constitutional System.” The last research paper (Abu-Sharida) is in English. It answers the following question: “Why Harmful Posts on Social Media should be Regulated.” This issue is concluded by reviews of three books, which have been recently published by Qatar University Press. The first review (Almuhtady bellah), of the book titled: “Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” by Ibrahim Al-Anani. The second review (Benlahcene), of the book titled: “Qatar and the Gulf Crisis” by Kristian Ulrichsen. The third review (al-Masry), of the book titled: “A Practical Guide to Upstream Petroleum Granting Instruments” by Peter Roberts. The editorial board thanks the distinguished researchers and arbitrators who contributed to this issue’s quality and scientific value, who strive to make the International Review of Law a platform for scientific knowledge that benefits the readers and researchers in various fields.

Book Review: Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

الأستاذ الدكتور إبراهيم العناني؛ أستاذ القانون الدولي العام في كلية القانون بجامعة قطر، وله مؤلفات عديدة ومتنوعة في مجال القانون الدولي العام. وقد اعتمدت كثيرًا على مؤلفاته؛ بما تحويه من معلومات وآراء قيّمة، عند قيامي بالبحوث القانونية المتخصصة، كذلك توليت التدريس على كتبه المقررة على طلاب البكالوريوس والدراسات العليا في جامعة قطر، وتحديدًا كتب مبادئ القانون الدولي العام، والقانون الدولي للبحار وقانون المسؤولية الدولية. ويتسم الأستاذ الدكتور إبراهيم العناني بمنهجيته المتعمّقة في دراسة الفكرة القانونية من خلال استخدام أسلوب سلس ومقنع، على نحو يسهل على أيّ قارئ استيعابه، سواءٌ أكان أكاديميًا، أم ممارسًا، أم طالبًا للقانون. والتسوية السلمية للنزاعات الدولية تعد بشكل عام من أساسيات القانون الدولي العام، لذلك توجد العديد من الكتابات المتعلقة بهذا الموضوع. ولكن ما يميز كتاب الأستاذ الدكتور إبراهيم العناني أنه قد تناول تحليلًا متعمّقًا وشاملًا لوسائل التسوية السليمة، فضلًا عن اهتمامه بشكل خاصّ بعرض وتحليل النزاعات المثارة في المنطقة العربية، ولا سيّما تلك التي تهتم بها دولة قطر.

Negotiation and mediation as a means of peaceful settlement of international economic disputes

Introduction. Interstate interaction and integration, on the one hand, are the key to the successful functioning of humanity, and on the other hand, they provoke the emergence of international differences and conflicts, including those of an economic nature. Successful settlement of economic differences in accordance with the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes is a necessary condition for strengthening and developing international cooperation. The issue of peaceful settlement of economic disputes, including through the use of diplomatic means, has been studied by such authors as I.V. Grynchak, О.M. Malysheva, Z.V. Tropin, etc. The purpose of the paper is to determine the specifics of negotiation and mediation as political ways to resolve economic disputes peacefully. Results. In international legal doctrine, the most common is the division of peaceful means of resolving international disputes into diplomatic (political) and legal (judicial). The most common are negotiations, good services and mediation, international arbitration. International negotiations, as part of the system of international relations, on the one hand, feel their influence, acting as a tool in solving a range of foreign policy and, in some cases, domestic policy problems, on the other – themselves affect international relations, largely defining and shaping them. The difference between mediation and negotiation is that a third party intervenes in the dispute resolution process with the aim of reconciling the parties. At the same time, the role of the mediator is quite passive, the purpose of his activity is to establish a constructive dialogue between the conflicting states. Therefore, the result of applying this method in some cases can only be reduced to the resumption of negotiations. Conclusion. Negotiation and mediation are diplomatic (political) means of peaceful settlement of international economic disputes. Such means of resolving international economic disputes are used in the presence of a common will of the parties to resolve the conflict, and a common focus on finding a mutually beneficial and compromise solution to the dispute. A key difference between negotiation and mediation is the involvement of a third party in the mediation process, which helps the parties to reach an agreed and compromise solution.

ICTs as the New Environmental Sentinels1

This article seeks to place under scanner the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) as important agents for the peaceful settlement of international disputes through the instrumentality of law. The rapid upswing in the number of specialized international courts and tribunals (in areas such as trade, human rights, law of the sea, criminal justice and environment) can be perceived as an attempt by the sovereign states to maintain viability of the ICTs in light of perplexity in international relations, growing recognition of peaceful co-existence, quest for institutionalized cooperation and emergence of some of the ‘Common Concerns of Humankind’ and the ‘Duty to Cooperate’. It has sought to make sense of emergence of ICTs as the ‘New Environmental Sentinels’. Do we need a specialized International Environmental Court (IEC) as an ‘ideal’? What does it portend for our common future?

REVIEW OF THE VOLUME ”SOLUȚIONAREA DIPLOMATICĂ A DIFERENDELOR ÎN DREPTUL INTERNAȚIONAL FLUVIAL” [DIPLOMATIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN INTERNATIONAL RIVER LAW], AUTHOR: DAN ALEXANDRU GUNĂ, LUMEN PUBLISHING HOUSE, 2019

Browsing through the pages of Dan Alexandru Gună's book, " Soluționarea diplomatică a diferendelor în dreptul internațional fluvial" [Diplomatic Settlement of Disputes in International River Law], the words "beatus, qui prodest, quibus potest" came to my mind (”blessed is the one who becomes useful through the help given”). In these few simple words I could describe this paper, which turns out to be a thorough research of the fundamental principle of public international law, namely the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Evolution and content of the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes in International Law

This article introduces a brief outline of the inter-State conflict types. The evaluation considers the principle of peaceful disputes’ settlement evolution from antiquity to the present based on the legal analysis of historical and international legal sources. The article looks at the content of this principle and a comparative legal study of peaceful dispute resolution laid down in the UN Charter and other international legal instruments. The authors conclude that the peaceful international disputes settlement is a complex, integrated principle with several interrelated elements and the content incorporated in various international legal instruments. The article highlights the vital role of appropriate freedom of States to choose the remedies of settling their disputes. This right is a corollary to two interrelated international law principles – the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in matters within their domestic jurisdiction.

The People’s Republic of China and the Development of Contemporary International Law: Review and Prospects

The development of Chinese international jurisprudence over the past 70 years can be divided into three stages: fledging; recovery and development; and flourishing. During the period, Chinese international lawyers have made great contributions to the development of international law through, inter alia, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, recognition and succession, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shared Future for Mankind, and so forth. However, participation in international legislation and international judicial activities needs to be further improved, because the theoretical ground for China’s foreign policy and diplomatic practice is still insufficient and academic works with global influence are not enough yet. The development of Chinese international law follows such trends: more valuable interpretation and application of international law; the theoretical innovation of international law; and the improvement of China’s discourse power. These are important missions for Chinese international lawyers.

International Courts and Tribunals – the New Environmental Sentinels in International Law

This study examines the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) as important agents for the peaceful settlement of international disputes through the instrumentality of law. The rapid upswing in the number of specialised international courts and tribunals (in areas such as trade, human rights, law of the sea, criminal justice and environment) can be perceived as an attempt by sovereign States to maintain the viability of ICTs in light of perplexity in international relations, growing recognition of peaceful co-existence, quest for institutionalised cooperation and emergence of some of the “common concerns of humankind”, as well as the “duty to cooperate”. The article has sought to make sense of the emergence of ICTs as the “New Environmental Sentinels” and what it portends for our common future. Do we need a specialised international environmental court?

The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, and a Partial Solution

The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, and a Partial Solution Matthew Bellinger (bio) Introduction When the United Nations (UN) was formed, one of its most important goals was to render war obsolete. The UN Charter states as a goal the hope to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."1 When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first described his vision for a post-World War II international organization, he envisioned an organization that would promote and facilitate "international cooperation . . . to consider and deal with the problem of world relations."2 He also wanted a council that would "concern itself with peaceful settlement of international disputes."3 The UN Charter itself took the then-unprecedented step of outlawing war, stating that "all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means," and that "all Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."4 However, the UN Charter does not address the important potential exception of humanitarian intervention. This lack of clarity has led to a robust debate that continues to this day—can a state legitimately use [End Page 371] force for humanitarian purposes? Today, many countries have embraced the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which allows countries to intervene in a humanitarian crisis if five criteria are met.5 One is that of reasonable prospects which asks, is "there a reasonable chance of the military action being successful in meeting the threat in question, and are the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction?"6 Unfortunately, this level of scrutiny needs to be revised; instead, it should be more rigorous to account for world leaders' consistent inability to estimate the effects of their intervention. Additionally, cultural disruption should be considered as one of the negative effects in this balancing test to address concerns about the use of humanitarian intervention as a pretext for colonialism. In this article, I intend to offer a potential solution to address these concerns. In Part I, I will examine the development of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and its transformation into the Responsibility to Protect. In Part II, I will discuss two of the potential problems with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The first problem is countries using humanitarian excuses as a pretext to advance national aims. The second problem is countries not accurately assessing the consequences of intervention. In Part III, I will discuss my potential solution to address these problems–heightening the balance of consequences test. This will be used to determine whether humanitarian intervention should be attempted and requiring countries to consider the desires and culture of the country that is the object of the intervention before intervening. Part I: The Humanitarian Intervention Doctrine and the Responsibility to Protect The United Nations Charter seems to forbid intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. The Charter states that nothing in its contents "shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,"7 but the Genocide Convention of 1948 quickly created an agreed upon exception.8 The Convention states that "[a]ny Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action . . . as they consider appropriate for the prevention and [End Page 372] suppression of acts of genocide."9 However, none of the Charter nations acted on the Convention during the Cold War. Gareth Evans, in a piece in the Wisconsin Law Journal, argues that the large number of states joining the UN during the Cold War discouraged humanitarian intervention. States saw the norm of non-intervention as one of the few protections against more powerful international actors.10 Indeed, the general consensus in the twentieth century was that unilateral humanitarian intervention was illegal. The UN Charter doesn't exempt humanitarian intervention from the prohibition against the use of force, and the International Court of Justice ruled in Nicaragua v. United States that custom doesn't permit unilateral humanitarian intervention.11 This status quo changed with the end of the Cold War, as a new era of...