SPEECHES
MR. AXWORTHY - ADDRESSAT THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW -THE HAUSER LECTURE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS AND HUMANITARIAN CONSTRAINTS - NEW YORK, N.Y.
2000/5 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY
THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY,
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
AT THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
THE HAUSER LECTURE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW:
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS AND
HUMANITARIAN CONSTRAINTS
NEW YORK, New York
February 10, 2000
(2:15 p.m. EST)
I am delighted to be with you this afternoon as the Hauser Lecturer on International Humanitarian Law. It is a
great honour for me to be introduced by you, Professor Meron, and I am delighted to share this platform with
you today.
Professor Meron, your capacity to generate ideas and stimulate debate in this area has been invaluable. Your
project on Fundamental Standards of Humanity, for instance, touches on one of the central challenges we face
in this new century, a challenge that
I would like to address this afternoon -- international protection of the people.
You are all well aware of the extensive body of international humanitarian and human rights law that has grown
over the years in this area. That evolving corpus of law serves as an acknowledgment of the need to protect
civilians as a code of our collective obligations and as a basis for international action.
There are times when events compel us to reassess our thinking and review our practice. We live in one of
those times.
First, there is the reality that modern armed conflict puts people more directly at risk -- in more varied ways and
in greater numbers than ever. The victimization of civilians is no longer the tragic byproduct of war, but often the
principal aim -- and, more often than not, the main result of violent conflict.
At the same time , there is much greater awareness of the world around us. Consciousness stimulates
conscience. Globalization has made individual human suffering an irrevocable universal concern. In our
interconnected world, our own security is increasingly indivisible from that of our neighbours -- at home and
abroad. This conference is eloquent testimony to this new reality.
There is also dramatic change in the actors and instruments of global affairs. Civil society and non-governmental organizations [NGOs] are playing an increasingly important role. The Internet and more rapid
communications improve people's capacity to connect directly, to participate in world affairs, and to mobilize
support for the less fortunate.
There is, finally and perhaps most importantly, an increasing willingness to speak up -- a disposition to take
action on behalf of people regardless of who they are and where they are -- and, in the process, to challenge
the most absolutist notions of non-interference.
In this new global context, people -- and not only the state -- are subjects of international relations. The security
and basic rights of people -- not merely the absence of military conflict between states -- are fundamental to
world stability and peace.
This focus on protecting people is integral to Canada's human security agenda. It is a foreign policy approach
aimed at putting people first by developing new concepts, adapting diplomatic practice and updating the
institutions on which the international system is based.
Human security covers the entire gamut of international relations -- from conflict prevention, to humanitarian
intervention, to post-conflict remediation. Since the end of WWII, the principle of international protection of
human rights has progressively gained weight at the expense of the most rigid interpretations of state
sovereignty.
This does not mean that the state is obsolete. Quite the opposite. For one thing, international promotion of
human security does not weaken sovereignty, but strengthens it by reinforcing democratic, tolerant, open
institutions and behaviour. For another, the state remains the most powerful instrument for collective action.
Those who have suffered under colonialism and other outside involvement in their countries might well be
sceptical. However, preventing abuse, stopping atrocities and dealing with the impact of war are also their
issues, pertaining to their realities and clearly affecting stability in their backyards. Some argue that human
security policies divert funds from the more basic priority of development. But far from being mutually exclusive,
human security and human development are just opposite sides of the same coin. It is hard to improve one's
GDP [gross domestic product] when so much of one's resources go to repair the damage of war and to mend
broken lives.
Others who defend the strictest interpretation of sovereignty undoubtedly have more dubious motives.
Sovereignty is clearly less and less of a shield behind which massive abuse can occur. This certainly must be
disturbing to those given to violating the security and safety of their own citizens. And how curious that the most
ardent defenders of state authority are the very ones who have few qualms about ceding it elsewhere to global
economic institutions when their economic interests are at stake.
The paradigm of international politics is clearly shifting to take more direct account of the rights of people. So,
too, is the practice. Indeed, as is often the case, practice is leading theory. The protection of people was the
inspiration behind the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, a movement strongly supported by Canadians --
and one that is producing global results.
Protecting people likewise provides the impetus behind Canada's active efforts to create the International
Criminal Court; to curtail the proliferation and abuse of small arms and light military weapons; and to help war-affected children. For example, Canada led in developing consensus on the text of the recently announced
protocol on the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers.
These are not discrete, unconnected events, but part of a wider effort to shape a world in which the security of
people is defended.
Protecting people also requires updating our international institutions. Canada is doing so by integrating the
human dimension into the work of the G-8, the OAS [Organization of American States], the OSCE
[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], the Commonwealth, la Francophonie and the UN.
The UN Security Council has not always responded resolutely to the challenges posed by new human security
threats. Canada, with other Council members, is trying to change that during our current term on the Council --
and with some success.
Through Canadian efforts, among others, the protection of civilians in conflict is now firmly on the Council
agenda. At Canada's initiative, the Secretary-General has prepared a report on the subject containing
recommendations for action.
We will continue to promote human security at the Council. To that end, we plan to promote a more targeted
approach to sanctions, work to reassert the Council's lead in peacekeeping, and continue to forge increased
and more open links between the Council and others. Last but not least, we will continue to progress on the
issue of humanitarian intervention.
Let me be very clear on this point. I am not talking about minor violations of human rights. There are other ways
to censure such misgovernance. What I am talking about is international intervention to prevent or stop massive
human suffering. Humanitarian intervention is called for only in severe cases -- genocide, war crimes, crimes
against humanity and massive and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
In these cases, the international community's record is not good. Consider the legacy of Pol Pot and Idi Amin.
Consider the findings of the independent inquiries on Rwanda and Srebrenica. These reports are a catalogue
of failure and inaction by the world in the face of enormous human suffering.
Certainly, preventive and non-coercive action is best -- mediation, confidence-building, promoting good
governance, democratic institution building, preventive deployment or sanctions. They should always be tried.
Indeed, we should put a premium on improving capacity, increasing resources and acting sooner in these areas
in order to avoid the necessity of stronger measures.
It remains true, though, that these actions are not always feasible and they don't always work. When they don't
work, humanitarian intervention becomes an option. It is one of the most difficult decisions that leaders can
make. It is fraught with complications. It challenges established thinking about the international order.
However, what validity is there to a rule of international law that cannot be enforced.
A full discussion about humanitarian intervention is, therefore, unavoidable and indispensable, because we will
undoubtedly be confronted with new humanitarian tragedies in the future; and because in the absence of
clarity, we will certainly be faced with the same questions, the same paralysis and the same lack of
preparedness -- with the same tragic results.
The lack of action in Rwanda and Srebrenica raised the question. NATO's action in Kosovo sparked the
debate. Last September, in a statement to the General Assembly, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan took up
the challenge, laid out the arguments and made clear the stakes. It is now a discussion that the UN Security
Council -- indeed, the international community -- must engage in.
In doing so, three issues need to be addressed: strengthening the norms and practices regarding the protection
of civilians; mobilizing the political will to act when necessary; and developing the military and civilian capacity
to succeed.
The basis for humanitarian intervention can rest on the UN Charter, developments in international humanitarian
and human rights law, and perhaps most significantly, on Security Council practice.
The opening articles of the UN Charter refer not only to the maintenance of international peace and security but
also to the reaffirmation of faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.
This is a powerful symbol of the international community's obligation to protect people, and serves as the
foundation for international action to that end.
International humanitarian and human rights law, specifically the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide
Convention, support the Charter concerning international responses to crimes against humanity and war
crimes. Article 1 of the Genocide Convention, for example, confirms that genocide is a crime under international
law, which contracting parties undertake to prevent and to punish.
The creation of International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the adoption of a
statute for the International Criminal Court further reinforce growing international consensus that those
responsible for massive and systematic violations of human rights within state borders are neither immune from
international law, nor can they escape international sanction.
Finally, the UN Security Council has authorized armed intervention for humanitarian purposes in a number of
cases -- Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and East Timor. To be sure, the circumstances in each are different.
There are nuances to the mandates. There are certainly questions about the results. But there is little doubt
that, taken together, these Council decisions recognize that genocide and other crimes against humanity
cannot stand unchallenged.
Still, what are governments to do when the Council is divided and terrible crimes are being perpetrated behind
the veil of sovereignty of an abusive state? The first issue that arises is whether the nature of the offence
warrants outside intervention. In our view, that can only be the case when egregious acts of violence are being
deliberately committed against the innocent. We have a very high test in mind. Once the judgment has been
made that the violence -- actual or threatened -- meets this test, there are several considerations to weigh:
- Urgency. Has time run out on other peaceful dispute resolution instruments? Humanitarian intervention
should be undertaken only when it is clear that all reasonable non-coercive efforts to prevent or resolve a
conflict have been tried and have failed. The threat or occurrence of massive human suffering and loss of life
is the key factor in determining the necessity of intervention.
- Prevention. Is there a danger that an intrastate conflict, if left alone, will proliferate and threaten regional or
international security? Not intervening can have a destabilizing effect on regional security. Inaction in
Rwanda, for example, has contributed to the spread of atrocities and civil conflict throughout central Africa.
- Consistency. All civilians are inherently equally worthy of protection. In practice, however, this raises
questions of international will and capacity to act in each case. Should we intervene, for example, if we
believe that we cannot improve the situation on the ground, or if it is clear that such a decision would merely
lead to the spread of conflict? Consistency is obviously the goal. But for those who criticize humanitarian
intervention on the grounds that it is inconsistently employed, I would ask: if the international community
cannot intervene everywhere, does that mean we must not intervene anywhere?
Strengthening norms also requires mobilizing the will to act.
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is the
focus around which action in these matters should be grounded, and the first place that the world's people look
to for leadership when their security and safety are at risk. Canadians do -- explaining our strong commitment
to an effective Council.
That is why the Council must now resolutely rise to the challenge of humanitarian intervention. Yet, even while
authorizing interventions on humanitarian grounds, some Council members have been unwilling to consistently
apply a broader definition of the Charter's peace and security mandate in response to today's conflicts.
Secretary-General Annan highlighted the resulting dilemma in this comment about Rwanda: "Imagine for one
moment that, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, there had been a coalition of states
ready and willing to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but the Council had refused or delayed giving the
green light. Should such a coalition then have stood idly by while the horror unfolded?"
In the face of deliberate, systematic, large-scale perpetration of atrocities against innocent people and if the
Council is paralysed -- do we still have an obligation to act?
Surely, the answer is yes.
Parallels with the anti-personnel mines campaign come to mind. The human suffering inflicted by these
weapons was enormous. The need, the demand and the imperative to respond were clear. Yet, the institution
charged with action was incapable of doing so. An alternative route was taken -- one that had tremendous
support, one that produced results, one that was brought back into the UN, and one that, ultimately,
strengthened the international system.
The cumulative weight of international human rights and humanitarian law, the global trend against impunity
and for accountability that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court, the precedents set by the
Council itself -- all justify action in the face of severe humanitarian crisis and Council inability to acquit its
responsibilities. Certainly, intervention in these circumstances must be exceptional and linked as closely as
possible to the Security Council -- before, during and after the conflict. But it must be an option.
This raises concerns in some quarters. Key to addressing these concerns and to mobilizing the will to act is a
clearer framework within which intervention can occur -- a framework that creates a permissive enough
environment to stop massive and systematic violations of human rights, balanced with safeguards to ensure
that it is not misused by states pursuing self-interested objectives. To that end, five important considerations
come to mind:
- Corroboration. Is the severity of the crisis corroborated by a credible third party? Independent confirmation
that a humanitarian crisis is imminent should be a prerequisite so that the international community is not
drawn in to serve the political goals of one or more countries.
- Practicability. Can the humanitarian intervention generate a positive outcome for victims? Intervention should
be undertaken when it is clear that with adequate resources, a clear mandate and broad support, it could
bring an end to acute and widespread suffering.
- Scale. Is the level of force appropriate to the circumstances? We should target the perpetrators of violence
and the infrastructure on which they depend, while ensuring due regard for civilians and the environment.
- Support. Is the intervention multilateral in nature and widely supported? Unilateral interventions, for example,
raise questions of abuse and/or self-interest by the intervener.
- Sustainability. Is the intervention part of a longer-term strategy to build and sustain peace? Humanitarian
intervention should not necessarily be seen as a stand-alone activity or a Band-Aid solution.
Mobilizing political will is closely linked to the availability of adequate military and civilian capacity. At a time
when requests for troops to help protect civilians in times of conflict are growing, governments must plan ahead
and marshal the necessary resources to carry out new missions.
The capacity of the UN itself to manage complex missions is under great strain.
A co-ordinated and integrated approach is required nationally and internationally to ensure that we are
prepared. Rapidly identifying and mobilizing the necessary military and civilian resources is fundamental to the
success of a decision to intervene for humanitarian purposes.
As Kosovo showed, it was not speeches condemning Serbian President Milosevic that stopped his actions -- it
was our willingness to undertake forceful action with strong international support. Yet at present, humanitarian
actions such as these are carried out in an ad-hoc manner -- by NATO, ECOMOG [Military Observer Group of
the Economic Community of West African States] or coalitions of the willing, such as INTERFET, the
multinational force deployed in East Timor.
Whatever the reasons, this trend toward a voluntary approach to enforcement action must be reversed. It
places undue burdens on those capable of paying. More importantly, it erodes the principle of universal
participation in collective security enshrined in the Charter.
We must also bear in mind that humanitarian intervention is aimed at providing immediate physical protection
for people -- a fundamental step, but usually only the first in building long-term stability and security. Building
the capacity to succeed means not only providing collective resources for humanitarian intervention, but
providing collective -- and adequate -- resources, attention and priority for peacebuilding activities that follow.
In our new global circumstances, the international protection of the individual has taken on increased
importance. It is the impetus behind Canada's human security agenda -- our way of making the protection of
people a top international priority.
The massive and systematic abuse of human rights is, tragically, an enduring feature of this new world. It is no
accident, then, that the subject of the international community's response, including humanitarian intervention,
should take on a renewed profile.
Discussion about humanitarian intervention is fraught with controversy. If there was some assurance that
people would no longer be subject to the most extreme violations of humanitarian and human rights law, some
guarantee the deliberate infliction of human suffering on a massive scale could be eliminated, and some
prospect that past atrocities would not be repeated in the future -- perhaps we could do without it. However,
that is unlikely.
It would undoubtedly be far easier to duck the issue. It would silence the critics. It would assuage lawyers. It
would satisfy finance ministries. However, there are those who most patently would not be better off, and who
are ultimately the most concerned -- the people subject to massive and systematic abuse. That is why
humanitarian intervention is something we must address -- the sooner the better.
Thank you.
|