Legitimising Intervention

Legitimising Intervention
Grounds for intervention in history have been predominately humanitarian based. A developing humanitarian situation that could not be alleviated via diplomatic channels, the provision of aid or the application of economic sanctions has resulted in more than one State being inflicted with humanitarian suffering. Military intervention with legitimacy sort through multilateral dialogue at the international level has been the only action available to the international community to alleviate the suffering. If applied earlier it could have possibly saved suffering and lives.

State’s identifying that military intervention is a requirement and identify such action requires legitimacy to prevent retaliatory or condemnatory action. They counter this by raising the issue within the dialogue of the United Nations to gain the support of the United Nations or at least the support of more than one State. This action legally contravenes the sovereignty of the State but is necessary under international liberalism as it is based on moral and ethical reasoning. With the development of a humanitarian issue, the contract made by the ruling regime with its constituents, whether liberal in application or not, has not been honoured by that ruling regime. International law has provided for justification for such action but only when all other means have been exhausted. This has been stipulated within the United Nations Charter’s Articles 42 and 51.

For preventative action in the case of a possible nuclear incident occurring, it would be difficult for State’s not to support early military intervention if a State is not able to ensure the security and safety of its strategic military assets. The effects would be instantaneous and the economical costs would be beyond many State budgets. Equality in this case would be in the ability of each State to receive the same financial and resourcing support through early non-military intervention. The international community providing the means to assure that the required safeguards are implemented and adhered to.

If these safeguards are not maintained or have been breeched, the intervention of an independent international organisation either supported or not supported by the ruling regime would be legitimised by the moral, ethical and legal requirements stipulated by the international institutions governing strategic nuclear assets. This intervention may be military based. Accountability and assessment could be analysed once the strategic nuclear assets are secured and legal action taken accordingly if required via either an international legal body or the domestic State body.

The movement towards nuclear civil programs places nuclear military programs in the reach of developing countries where stability is not necessarily assured. The historical steps followed by the international community towards intervening either militarily or diplomatically into the internal functioning of the State with regards to humanitarian issues becomes complicated when States have strategic nuclear assets at their disposal. To ensure the provision of appropriate procedures and legitimacy are in place to prevent an ecological disaster with international humanitarian consequences needs to be formulated. An ecological disaster related to a nuclear incident would have limited lead-time and would require prompt and efficient action to ensure prevention.

Normal humanitarian issues have a significant lead-time allowing for in depth multilateral diplomacy for resolution. The issuing of prompt and efficient action to prevent a nuclear incident may appear to be a contravention of the law of nature. However to ensure individual freedom, sustainability needs also to be ensured. Social contracts, as argued by Locke and Rawls as the founding liberal principle for government and society are necessary to allow for international agreement to the use of prompt and efficient action to ensure prevention.

Footnotes
1 Thomas J. Schroenbaum, International Relations The Path Not Taken: Using International Law to Promote World Peace and Security. 2006. New York p114 and Alex Conte, Alex Conte, Security in the 21st Century: The United Nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. 2005. Hants. p.96-97
2 The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 2005, Article three states that this Convention shall not apply where the offence occurs within a single State, the alleged offenders and the victims are nations of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under Article 9 para 1 or 2 to exercise jurisdiction. This allows for legal action to be taken within the State of the issue is contained within the Stats borders. This allows for intervention of an independent international body to assist with the containment of the offence