Legitimate use of military force against state-sponsored - Air University

In light of the current status of the doctrine or right of humanitarian intervention, it is not
surprising that agreement does not exist on the conditions that must be satisfied for the legitimate
use of armed force in this regard. What follows is a brief listing of possible conditions for
humanitarian intervention with the name of the jurist or scholar advocating the requirement in
parentheses.
The action must be taken in response to threats to another’s nationals (this writer). If the
action were to protect one’s own nationals, then that doctrine and not humanitarian intervention
would apply.
The action must be taken in response to an immediate and extensive threat to
fundamental human rights, particularly a threat of widespread loss of human life that shocks the
conscience of mankind (Brierly, Lillich, Maizel, Moore, and the International Commission of
Jurists).
The action must be proportional (Lillich, Moore, Nanda, and the International
Commission of Jurists). It is difficult to understand how this condition will he applied in these
circumstances. How does one rescue an entire population from its own government? Can this be
achieved without replacing the government in power? 81
The action must have a minimal effect on the established government (Moore). See
condition 3 above.
A prompt disengagement must take place when the purpose of the action has been
accomplished (Lillich. Moore, Nanda, and the International Commission of Jurists).
The action must be immediately reported to UN Security Council and appropriate
regional organizations (Moore and the International Commission of Jurists).
The action requires an invitation from a recognized government (Brierly, Brownlie,
Lillich, and Nanda). If there is an invitation, then there is no intervention. Invitation alone will
justify the use of force abroad. None of the other conditions for humanitarian intervention are
required in such circumstances.
The action must be for a limited duration (Lillich and Nanda).
The action must be taken as a last resort (Lillich, Nanda, and the International
Commission of Jurists).
The state invoking the coercive measures must be acting with relative disinterestedness
and impartiality (Brierly, Maizel, and Lillich). This condition focuses on whether the intervening
state is more interested in human rights than it is in self-interest and power.
The international community must have had an opportunity to verify the factual
circumstances and be given an opportunity to solve the problem (Brierly, Maizel, and the
International Commission of Jurists).