Journal of Law and Criminal Justice

Has the Assertion that International Law Universally Prohibits Military Intervention in Instances of Government-Perpetrated Mass Atrocities against Its Own Populace or State Collapse Become Untenable?
Emmanuel Kwegyir Arthur-Ewusie

Abstract
This paper critically examines the evolving assertion that international law universally prohibits military intervention in instances of government-perpetrated mass atrocities against its own populace or during state collapse. Through a detailed analysis of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, UN Security Council resolutions, and evolving state practices, this paper highlights the significant shifts in international norms since the early 1990s. The adoption of R2P by the United Nations in 2005, which recognizes the international community's duty to intervene when states fail to protect their populations from severe human rights abuses, marks a pivotal challenge to the traditional principle of non-intervention. Additionally, UN-sanctioned interventions and unilateral actions on humanitarian grounds illustrate the growing acceptance of military intervention under specific circumstances. However, the legal framework remains contentious, with ongoing debates regarding the balance between state sovereignty and the moral imperative to prevent atrocities. This paper argues that the rigid interpretation of non-intervention is increasingly untenable in light of these developments, urging a nuanced understanding of international law that reconciles the need for humanitarian protection with the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force.

Full Text: PDF     DOI: 10.15640/jlcj.v12a5