Abstract: Humanitarian interventions reveal that the military proceedings carried out a relatively powerful state, sometimes, in an alliance of states, in the form of invasion or incursion into the sovereign territories of certain states with the pretext to assuage the rising atrocity against human communities. The inhumane act of violence is the deliberate and systematic violations of human rights i.e. forced expulsions, ethnic cleansing and in the worst case, genocide. Sometimes, the conditions of any states where there is no decent human living condition, rule of law or proper civil order, invite enough reason for intervening on behalf of humanity.
It is a sudden act that obviously goes beyond the jurisdictions of the popular international law and legitimate ways of dealing with the situations which are supposed to be the most unpleasant and inhumane. Apart from that, the relatively powerful states can impose trade embargo or any form of sanctions in order to bring the oppressive regimes to the table of negotiation. The threat of force or coercion or deterrent actions can also be taken for this regard. The issue has taken wider spaces across the varied forums around the world.
However, international humanitarian law cannot supply as a basis for armed intervention in response to severe violations of its provisions; the use of force is governed by the United Nations Charter. Hence, any application of force on the notion of humanitarian intervention against any sovereign state clashes with the legal provisions. Despite widespread concern, no consensus was reached on the principles governing humanitarian intervention.
Matrika Poudyal, Ph.D. Scholar,
International Relations and Diplomacy,
Tribhuvan University, Nepal