Humanitarian Intervention in Rwanda From the Perspective of English School.
Furkan Cakın
130303006
Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a state’s use of “military force against another state to prevent or stop a gross violation of human rights in a state, where such state is whether incapable or unenthusiastic to ptotect its own people, or actively torturing them. 1990s have been identified as a decade of humanitarian intervention. There are a lot of events that occured in that decade with respect to humanitarian intervention , such as, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, and Kosova for “humanitarian purposes”. United Nations and other international comminities saw different human rights abuses and tortures in those states. And they immediately took an action in order to bring peace, order, stability, and justice to the regions. The theory of english school does seem to provide a robust key factors to determine the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, in order to understand with regard to intervention matter completely, we must also examine the other theories of international relations as well. This essay will explain the humanitarian intervention in Rwanda, and Kosovo not only the lens of english school, but also realist and liberalist perspective positions on determining the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions. In order to do so, each theory will be explained and examined. This approach will reveal that although, in theory, the english school does provide a solid basis for determining the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention, in practice, the english school encounters certain challenges.(Dhalival, 2014)
The English School (international relations) theory originated out of Britain universities (even though many of the influential writers were not British in national origin), and has been viewed as “the oldest and arguably the most significant rival to the American mainstream” (Dunne, 2011). One often overlooked theoretical lens which could allow for the type of theorising required to encompass a more accurate evaluation of contemporary international relations is referred to as the English School. (Houndmills: Palgrave, 1998) The English school of international relations theory maintains that there is a “society of state” at the international level. Shortly, the English school, or society of states approach, is a crucial method for understanding how the world operates. In its original articulations, the English School was designed to incorporate the two major theories that were trying to explain international outcomes – namely, realism and liberalism(Murray,2016). Therefore, when we are explaining the theory of English school we must take into consideration both theories. The English school of international theory also, center on the issue of categories of states within the international system. The English school scholars, they mostly focus on the development of an international society. They looked at the formation of society as well. The other key element for English school theory is, sovereignty. For the English school theory the concept of sovereignty is not same concept that given in the international system , in contrast, it something established, and only be able to exist because of the recognition of this notion by actors themselves. As Dunne notes, ‘ clearly the act of mutual recognition indicates the presence of a social practice recognition is fundamental to an identity relationships. Recognition is the first step in the construction of an international society.’ The construction of the sovereign system is initial for the guarantee of economic and also security, and after states assure their system , they will recognize each other. However, for English school understanding of international society recognition is not a sufficient condition. They suggest that, the actors must have some minimal common interest. For instance, free trade, freedom of travel, or the need for state stability. The states also agreed upon about westfalian order. Westalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs. Westfalian treaty also, suggest that states should not interfere other states domestic affairs. All the states are equal in international area.
Within the English school itself there are two different division, which evaluate and determine the targets of international society very differently. The first is the pluralist understanding, which emphasizes on a more Hobbessian notions or realist understanding of the field. Pluralist understanding stress the conduct of state within anarchy but are still sure to note that states cooperate, despite the existence of self-interest. (Linklater, Junganam, 2006). A pluralist framework restrict the use of violence but it does not outlaw the use of force. The pluralist version of international society is based on minimal rules, which means that, there is a protection of national sovereignty, and they try to create and maintain the international order. Moreover, ın pluralist view condition of anarchy, are thought to be the most crucial factors in explaining and understanding the conduct of pluralist society. There are also some points of overlapping between realism and English school, which is the pluralist notion. The pluralist framework national sovereignty consider as a really important factor. It states that state domestic affairs cannot be intervene or interfere regardless of any issue.
The second interpretation of international society is referred to as a solidarist account. The solidarist view can be interpreted in different ways and can cooperate a variety of international relations. In its earliest articulations, solidarism focus predominantly on Kantanian or liberal understanding of IR, since the primary focus was on how the individual within the state effected the conduct of the society of states. : (January 25, 2013) Solidarist framework is more likely to close to liberal understanding of international relations. And this liberal roots allow for notions like, human rights, individual security, and peace. Shortly, the solidarists argue that society of state shall do more for promoting the causes of human rights and , emancipation as opposed to the rights of states to political independence and non-intervention in their domestic affairs.
A key tenet of English school theory is that it identifies the interaction between the international system (Realist/Hobbes), international society (Rationalist/Grotian), and world society (Revolutionist/Kantian) (Copeland, 2003). Thus, the English school theorists identify an approach that is via media between realism and liberalism and has been described as occupying a ‘middle way’ (Brown 2001, P. 424, as cited in Dhaliwal, 2014). It is crucial to know that within the English school theory there is divergence between those known as pluralists and those known as solidarists. Moreover, when we are examining the humanitarian intervention, we should take into account both divided accounts. From the pluralist perspective, international society must persuade non-intervention to maintain order in the anarchical society. On the other hand, the solidarists stand up for humanitarian intervention to maintain the peace in human rights, individual secure.
There are several issues with regard to the humanitarian interventions in the world. The most important one is, who is going to authorize the interventions. The member states of the United Nations have already accepted that the decisions are taken in the UN Security Council is going to implement over the country that fall into humanitarian abuses. Even though there are incidents of isolated unilateral interventions. The United Nations Charter indicates in Article 2(4) that non-intervention is the general protocol except for ‘self defence and actions authorized by the UN Security Council’ (Chesterman, 2003, P. 1). However, since the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s (ICISS) creation of the doctrine Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the UN has adopted this as its framework on humanitarian intervention (United Nations, 2013). The R2P highlights six criteria for intervention: right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects (Yoshida, 2013). These criteria for military forces intervention have been taken from the just war theory. Reason to Protect theory is really significant because many of the United Nations actions have been taken based on this dogma. Hence, both Reason to Protect and Just War theory are crucial because organizations and states base their actions and determinations with regard to legitimacy of their intervention on those doctrines.
From its beginning the United Nations was active in several humanitarian interventions, such as , Korean War (1950 to 1953), the Democratic Republic of Congo crisis, the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait, and the Balkan crisis. However, the Rwanda genocide of 1994 was a case that genuinely and clearly required a humanitarian intervention and it didn’t receive any aid from the international organizations especially from United Nations. The case of Rwanda (1994) highlighted the need for intervention despite the debate about re-defining sovereignty (Dhaliwal, 2003). Rwanda saw “Hutu extremists launching their plans to destroy the entire Tutsi civilian population” with an estimated “800,000 men, women, and children perishing in the Rwandan genocide” (United Human Rights Council, 2013). The United Nations has been criticized by the world organizations and states for not intervening humanitarian crime. Some scholars think that, decision was taken by United Nations was the worst decision they ever made. In the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide, the international community made a historical declaration; “never again, not on our watch”. For the case for Rwanda, if we are going to look at it from the pluralist perspective United Nations did the right thing and took the right decision to not intervene to Rwanda. United Nations decisions were respectful towards the state of Rwanda sovereignty. Rwanda’s sovereignty has been recognized by United Nations. According to the Westfalian order it declare that, “all the interventions are illegitimate”. By intervening in other countries, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) is undermined. Considering the solidarist account of English school theory, after the Rwanda genocide secretary-general of the United Nations, asked the members of the UN General Assembly how the world should respond "to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?" Answering the challenge, the Canadian government and a number of renowned global foundations, established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which developed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine (Agvu, 2015). And the doctrines that emerged have strengthen solidarist English School thought power.
The case of Kosovo (1999) saw “open conflict between Serbian military and police forces and Kosovar Albanian forces that resulted in the deaths of over 1,500 Kosovar Albanians and forced 400,000 people from their homes” (NATO, 1999). For this case NATO took the responsibility to protect civilians from human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and among other humanitarian imperatives. NATO intervention was necessary to preserve the civilians. Despite the fact that the English school’s advocation for humanitarian intervention may seem morally and ethic, for the theory characteristics, the concept of sovereignty has been decreased. Nonetheless, the English school’s advocation of humanitarian intervention along the shared moral/ethical norms that the international society holds does seem to provoke the need to address the concept of sovereignty (Dhaliwal, 2014).
In conclusion, the separation of the English school theory between pluralist and solidarist has had deep effect on the notion of humanitarian intervention. From the theory of English school, the solidarist notion of the school provide a robust basis for evaluating and determining the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. This legitimacy is based on common norms and values in international society. Solidarist notion try to protect civilians from, human rights abuse, war crimes, crimes against humanities, genocide and other humanitarian imperatives with intervening the host state. On the other hand, pluralist account argue that the protection of national sovereignty based on the Westfalia order which is, all the interventions are illegitimate. Nonetheless, wars, crimes, and conflicts will always continue to occur while the idea of humanitarian intervention will always be there.
REFERENCES
Dhaliwal, R. Using English School Theory to Determine Legitimate Humanitarian Intervention.
Murray, R. W. (2013). System, Society, and the World: Exploring the English School of International Relations. United Kingdom: e-International Relations.
Chesterman, S. (2001). Just war or just peace?: humanitarian intervention and international law. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Macfarlane, S. N., Thielking, C. J., & Weiss, T. G. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect: is anyone interested in humanitarian intervention?. Third World Quarterly, 25(5), 977-992.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/
1