Justifying 'humanitarian intervention'

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday warned U.S. President Barack Obama that he should not undermine his reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate by attacking Syria. But would that really be the result of U.S. military action-

Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the main purpose of the organization is to preserve world peace and security and that measures must be taken to prevent threats to peace. There is no doubt that the policies of Syrian President Bashar Assad represent a threat to world peace and that he is committing acts of aggression. This is the primary justification for action in Syria.

However, the U.N. Charter also stipulates that the principles of international law must be used to resolve global conflicts and thwart threats to peace. The term "international law" applies, among other things, to the U.N. Charter itself, which details permissible use of force. Under the system in place, the use of force is subject to the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Acts of self-defense also require U.N. Security Council approval.

In practice, one exception has been created: "humanitarian intervention." This means that when a regime is committing grave breaches of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity, other countries have the right to intervene to defend the victims of the regime. This policy, however, is still not considered to be binding law. But there is no doubt that it fulfills the provisions of the U.N. Charter, as the U.N. is obligated to suppress aggression and other threats to peace.

Dr. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen is a senior international law lecturer at Sha'arei Mishpat College in Hod Hasharon.