Humanitarian interventions between moral responsibility and state sovereignty

The case of the failed intervention in Rwanda

Abstract

Following the second half of 20th century, the debate on the humanitarian intervention has gained momentum on
the international scene. Tensions have raised between the “solidarists” whose claims are related to the promotion of
human rights and state’s moral obligation to intervene to alleviate human suffering based on the Preamble, Article
1, Article 55 and Article 56 of the UN Charter and “realists” who affirm that state sovereignty and the banning of
outside interference in the internal jurisdiction of states are crucial because they are also legally stipulated throughout
the UN Charter, more specifically in Article 2. By the end of the century, Rwanda has faced one the roughest
genocides in the world as a result of hatred between two groups who have been ethically constructed as being totally
different. The response from the international stage did not materialize. In this study I will address how the motives
behind Rwanda’s intervention can be attributed to one of the two conceptions. It might seem intuitive to consider
that the failed intervention is due to the state sovereignty rule, but in fact the naming of genocide as being a civil
war prevented the external forces to act. The findings will provide an analysis of how morality and the respect for
human rights have been quantified in number of deaths needed to use the force in a humanitarian mission. However,
the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect(R2P) transformed the traditional way of thinking about humanitarian
interventions.