‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty: A Comparative Study of the International Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force in Syria and Libya’

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty are two competing principles in international law. The principle of humanitarian intervention seeks to protect the lives and basic human rights of civilians in situations of conflict and crisis while the principle of state sovereignty emphasises the territorial integrity and political independence of states. This research examines the competing legal frameworks governing humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty in the cases of Syria and Libya. The UN prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity states, except in self-defence or when authorized by the Security Council. The similarities and differences in the use of force during intervention in both Syria and Libya were reviewed while discussing the challenges found within the legal frameworks. Examples of judicial cases, opinions of the courts and legal instruments like the United Nations Charter, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the National Defense Authorization Act, and Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq were all used within this study. Furthermore, research derived from journal articles, books, and digital sources is drawn upon. Against the foregoing, recommendations are proffered in resolving problems faced in implementing legal frameworks in the use of force while observing Syrian and Libyan sovereignty during humanitarian intervention. These include strengthening the early warning system for potential atrocities, having military intervention considered as a final option, and developing a clear legal framework for humanitarian intervention that respects state sovereignty while also protecting civilians.