The issue of intercession in the domestic personal businesss of independent states by other independent state ( s ) is one of the biggest challenges tormenting international jurisprudence at the minute. This is so because the demand for the regard of human rights has been emphasized in recent old ages while, on the other manus, international jurisprudence has steadfastly held the thought of sovereignty and its premier characteristic, the policy of non-interference in high respect. Indeed, sovereignty has been regarded as the foundation of modern international dealingss. However, the philosophy of one-sided human-centered intercessions gives province ( s ) powers to acquire involved in a states ‘ personal businesss if there are instances of monolithic misdemeanor of human rights. These misdemeanors can be in the signifier of race murder or mass violent deaths. In this mode, the philosophy of human-centered intercession can be seen to be an insult to the rule of “ non-interference ” and as a consequence its cogency has been questioned in recent times. The intent of this paper is hence to analyze the legality of one-sided human-centered intercession.


The rule of one-sided human-centered intercession has been debated for several centuries. However, its legality in international dealingss has been controversial since it violates the basic norms of international dealingss, viz. the rule of province sovereignty. For several decennaries, province sovereignty has been the nucleus of interstate dealingss every bit good as a foundation of universe order and it is rooted in both customary jurisprudence and the United Nations ( UN ) Charter. Therefore, province sovereignty is one of the most of import philosophies in international jurisprudence and it plays a critical function in keeping peace and order in the universe.

Several writers and bookmans have argued that the philosophy of non-interference is possibly the individual most nature of province sovereignty. Non-interference policy condemns all mode of intervention in the domestic personal businesss of a autonomous state. The philosophy holds that each independent province ought to freely find its ain socio-economic policies every bit good as the civilization to be embraced. In short, sovereignty means competency and equal intervention of all states.

Unilateral human-centered intercession is cardinal in international jurisprudence, and its prominence has grown significantly in the last 20 old ages. The term refers to the military intercession by one or more states in the domestic personal businesss of another state, without its permission, in order to forestall gross misdemeanor of human rights. Unilateral human-centered intercession is, hence, a misdemeanor of the sovereignty of a province by another. This mean, the philosophy is in direct struggle with one of the basic dogmas of international jurisprudence and, hence, a distinguishable legal justification is required so as to ask its continued use. Morally, it sounds good, but lawfully, it is non justified.

In modern times, the legality of this rule has been controversial in international jurisprudence. Many bookmans every bit good as authoritiess are consentaneous in their statement that the United Nations ( UN Charter ) , which controls the usage of force in international dealingss, disallows the usage of one-sided usage of force, including human-centered intercession. On the other manus, several bookmans have questioned this sort of thought, reasoning that one-sided human-centered intercession is legal.

This paper, hence, assesses the legality of one-sided human-centered intercession in international jurisprudence. Specifically, its legality will be examined from two positions ; from the UN Charter and the Customary International Law, because these two are the foundations of international jurisprudence.

Sovereignty and Human-centered Intervention

For the past 100s of old ages, province sovereignty has been the steering philosophy for interstate dealingss every bit good as a foundation for universe order.1 State sovereignty is one of the basic rules of international jurisprudence, under both the customary international jurisprudence and the UN Charter, and it plays a important portion in guaranting universe peace and order in add-on to the defence of weak states against the strong.2

State sovereignty means competency, independency, and the legal equality among states. 3 The philosophy of province sovereignty involves all instances in which a province is allowed by international jurisprudence to take and move without resort to other independent states. 4 Some of the instances include the sort of political mechanism to be used by the province in add-on to the socio-economic and cultural systems.5 Each province has its ain option to take among these systems.

State sovereignty has been in being for many old ages. Many bookmans argue that, the present foundations of international jurisprudence associating to sovereignty were as a consequence of the pacts of Westphalia in 1648. 6 The high quality of the regulating authorization was recognized within a construction of crowned head and equal provinces as a manner to forestall another war after three decennaries of war and, hence, conveying approximately peace in Europe.7

State sovereignty has since clip immemorial been a major specifying rule as respects to interstate dealingss and has ever been a foundation for universe order for the past old ages. It is a critical rule under the UN Charter and customary international order and it play a critical function in keeping peace and security and supporting the weak states against the strong 1s. State sovereignty therefore refers to the competency of a province, its independency and the legal equality of all the states. The construct involves all affairs that each state is allowed by international jurisprudence to move and make up one’s mind without any resort to other autonomous states.

Some of the affairs entailed in province sovereignty include the political, economic cultural and societal systems that have to be employed by the provinces. Every province is free to take the system it prefers. However, for any entity to measure up for sovereignty, so it must first of all qualify to be a province. Elementss of statehood include holding a functioning authorities, a lasting population and a defined district. The UN Charter prohibited the intervention in the domestic personal businesss of autonomous states by other autonomous states by usage of force or menaces. Matters within the domestic legal power of any states were non hence to be interfered by the planetary organic structure or UN.

The International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) besides respected the rule of non-interference of any state in its domestic personal businesss and that is the ground it noted in 19409 that regard for territorial sovereignty was a critical foundation for international dealingss among the independent provinces. Even though the function of province sovereignty is important in international dealingss, its importance has ever been put in difference before and even now. Controversies have presently emerged from the addition in the position of the human-centered intercession rule which at times has been inconsistent with the set traditional civilizations of sovereignty. It has been referred to by Steinberger in the Public International Law Encyclopedia as being the most controversial and aglitter impression in the philosophy, history and pattern of International Law.

Some of the Critics of the one-sided human-centered intercession Law have sought to ostracize it from the vocabulary and even termed it to hold an affectional quality that lacks a specific meaningful content. The construct of sovereignty has nevertheless been confronting some challenges in international dealingss particularly during the last one-fourth of the twentieth Century.

Unilateral human-centered intercession has been given assorted definitions by different bookmans. Intervention has been described by some authors to intend dictatorial intervention by a state in the internal issues of another province or between its dealingss with other provinces. Intervention nevertheless refers to prohibited intercession customarily when mentioning to international jurisprudence. The grade of coercion that is applied so as to act upon other provinces can be used to separate between the three basic signifiers of intercession.

In the first significance, intercession implies scrutiny, treatment and the subsequent recommendatory action. In the 2nd topographic point, intercession agencies taking steps which are aimed at haling but which fall short of the usage of force and eventually intercession refers to the usage of force in the domestic personal businesss of another state or province. The usage of justifiable force for the ground of protecting the dwellers of a state from persistent and arbitrary or opprobrious intervention and which exceeds the criterions within which any crowned head province is supposed to move with grounds or justness is referred to as human-centered intercession.

Human-centered intercession has besides been described as a theory of intercession which bases on humanity and which recognizes the right of a peculiar province to exert its international control through the usage of military force over the discourtesies of another in relation to its sovereignty when issues are contrary to the Torahs of humanity. Even though the definitions may non be all that indistinguishable they may all convey inside informations sing the philosophy of human-centered intercessions. The usage of armed force is a common feature in all of the definitions and hence human-centered intercession entails the legitimate usage of military power in the internal running of personal businesss of a state by another group of provinces or even a individual province. The usage of human-centered intercession that has to be justified by the usage of force is usually dependent on the misdemeanors of the human rights in the province in inquiry.

Harmonizing to Teson, a Scholar, the customary deduction of prohibited intercession means the dictatorial intervention in the internal personal businesss of another state with the purpose of keeping or changing the existent order of issues in the state in a manner that is basically within the bounds of the mark province. For any intercession to be prohibited the agencies used must hence be coercive and its nonsubjective must be to be able to act upon the determinations or behavior of another province in a mode which is within the province ‘s legal power.

The chief intents of utilizing human-centered intercession in a province are to restrict the monolithic misdemeanors of human rights in the specific province like in the instance of Tanzania ‘s 1979 intercession in Uganda and to keep regional and planetary stableness of provinces like in the instance of India ‘s intercession in Bangladesh ( once East Bengal ) because of the monolithic influx of refugees to India because of the atrociousnesss committed against the people of East Bengal by Pakistan ‘s ground forces.

Some of the historical developments that arose due to the rule of one-sided human intercession included the Law of nature, the merely war theories, for grounds which were aimed at a Jus Ad Bellum for the autonomous states and the intercessions of the 19th and early twentieth centuries which were based on a rigorous application of the sovereignty of the state provinces that were characterized by acknowledgment of conquerings and the usage of limitless right to war.

In 1860 ‘s, war was regarded to be an exercising of an international right to action and to which from the nature of the issues and deficiency of any common superior tribunal, provinces are forced to hold resort so as to be able to asseverate and presume their rights. War was nevertheless regarded to be the last resort and it was merely turned to when peaceable dialogues had wholly failed. The invasion of Greece by some Western provinces in 1827 was an illustration of intercessions which were justified on human-centered evidences.

Although the philosophy of one-sided human-centered intercession is presently illegal as respects to the international jurisprudence, its use plays a really critical function in the personal businesss of the universe and it should hence be allowed in state of affairss where there is gross misdemeanor and maltreatment of human rights. Its usage should nevertheless be laid down in a clear standard to avoid its maltreatment. State sovereignty has usually co-existed alongside the one-sided human-centered intercession rule from the innovation of the province system. It is as such arguable that the customary right of one-sided human intercession has been in being since World War II.

The Treaty Law-UN Charter

The UN charter establishes the international jurisprudence that governs the usage of force. Article 2 ( 4 ) of the UN charter stipulates that “ All Members shall forbear in their international dealingss from the menace or usage of force against the territorial unity or political independency of any province, or in any other mode inconsistent with the aims of Purposes of the United Nations. “ A This means that the territorial and political independency of any Sovereign State should be respected. The lone exclusion in the non intercession regulation above is in the instance of self-defence from an armed onslaught: Article 51 and by the Security Council where universe peace and security is threatened and other methods have proven futile. Article 2 ( 7 ) regards 2 ( 4 ) by forbiding the UN itself from intercession in domestic affairs within the control of a State. However, the job in the two articles is if a right of human-centered intercession exists. This remark has led to a het argument in many conferences and acmes. Many jurisprudence bookmans argue that human-centered intercession is illegal under the charter. Others are of the sentiment that the regulation of non-intervention gone to the ius cogens position where no disparagement is allowed. Minority scholars argue that the publicity of international human rights was the footing of the UN courser and, hence, legal.A

Textual Arguments

Classicists Good Faith View

The Classical theoreticians believe that no persuasive land exists to back up the claim that the right of human-centered intercession exist in the UN Charter. In their support they affirm that there exist merely two exclusions to the sovereignty of a province: ego defence and mandate of the Security Council. They province that the articles 2 ( 4 ) and 2 ( 7 ) plus the General Assembly declaration 2131 denounce the usage of force in the international dealingss. In add-on, advocates of the classical theory argue that in the exclusions granted in the charter no word such as human-centered intercession exists. A classical theoretician Gordon argues that if the framers of this charter wanted to utilize human-centered intercession as an exclusion so they should hold added the words suitably and clearly.

The General Assembly Resolution 2625 that trades with the cooperation and dealingss among provinces stipulates that “ No province or group of provinces has the right to step in, straight or indirectly, for any ground whatever, in the internal or external personal businesss of another province. “ A The 1974 General Assembly declaration was to confirm the inviolability of the non-intervention rule and its laterality in the planetary dealingss. They further argue that the charter laminitiss were disbelieving and afraid of the one-sided usage of force and as such they restricted the right to self defence. Finally, they argue that the purpose of the drafters of the Charter was to buttress but non to curtail the prohibition on force use in international issues. Therefore, human-centered intercession is non legal in the charter.A

Advocates View

The realists argue that the UN charter was at that place non to sabotage but to put more accent on the regulation of human-centered intercession. In their statements they purport that the prohibition on usage of force in the article 2 ( 4 ) is non restrictive in that it forbids usage of force merely when it is directed towards protection of political independency and territorial unity

D’Amato argues that the significance of territorial unity is non clear to the serious musics. Territorial unity means the bar of lasting loss of 1s district. As such, human-centered intercession ‘properly ‘ will ensue to loss of no sovereignty. He farther explains the thoughts of political independency. Political independency means that the independency of a province should non be compromised. From his statements it is deducible that, human-centered intercessions have no consequence on the states independency hence it does non go against the political independency of a state.

Teson argues that legitimate human-centered intercession does non impair the territorial unity and political subjection of a State. The realists besides hold a position that it is non dubious that the UN charter seeks to advance human rights. This is every bit stipulated in the article 1 ( 3 ) of the Charter: that the UN seeks to achieve international cooperation, which is by advancing the regard of all human rights and the cardinal freedoms that govern persons without favoritism as of race, linguistic communication, sex, faith etc. Teson states that purposeful reading of the article 2 ( 4 ) indicates that force can be used to subvert the governments that are non respectful of the cardinal rights of persons.

In decision, the realists articulate that if all cases of usage of force except those which are expressly stated in the Charter were non legal, so the clauses measure uping the Article 2 ( 4 ) are rendered excess. As such, to give significance to those measure uping clauses, one has to read other parts of the UN Charter. In the preamble, this Charter enlists publicity of rights of persons as one of its intents, and so the rule of human-centered intercession is consistent with it.A

Decision: Status of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention under the UN Charter

A purposeful reading of the Article 2 ( 4 ) does non to the full give the legality of the human-centered intercession in the UN charter. The reading of the preamble besides gives no legality to the human-centered intercession. The Vienna convention on Laws of pacts provinces that where the common significance of commissariats in pacts is ill-defined, a auxiliary agencies of reading should be sought. These auxiliary agencies includes travaux preparatoires and even the fortunes of the illations.

The Travaux preparatoires of this Charter does n’t assist in finding the existent significance of the Article 2 ( 4 ) of this charter. This is due to the fact that there is in adequateness in certification of the travaux preparatoires content. Some bookmans content that the preparatoires is non consentaneous on the issue. Other bookmans besides content that it is of small or no aid to the reading of the Article. Brownie is non clear if the framers of the Article had the purpose to keep customary exclusions on usage of force. Lillich on the contrary observed that Brownies premises are non to the full supportive of the illation that the concluding clause in the article does non to the full measure up the prohibition. The averments of the Classists are more lawfully persuasive though as a affair of policy, the points put away by the advocates are more appealing.

Customary International Law

The Customary International Law is one of the foundations of International Law and it is referred to as a pattern which is followed in instances where people feel lawfully obliged to act in such a mode. The regulation of the customary international jurisprudence can merely be if a pattern which is followed by the generalization of the states in their belief that there is a legislative act that supports such a pattern. The difference between the customary jurisprudence and other patterns is derived from province pattern and opino juris.

The stuff component ( province pattern ) is obtained from the behaviour and pattern of provinces while the psychological component is derived from the strong belief which is held by provinces or states in which the behaviour in inquiry has been necessitated through a regulation of jurisprudence that is non discretional.

State pattern and its constituents

State pattern is the natural stuff of customary jurisprudence and it constitutes what other states do in relation to other provinces or states. State pattern hence entails the procedure of a uninterrupted demand, interaction and response. It includes behaviour of a state which discloses its witting attitude in relation to its acknowledgment of a jurisprudence associating to international jurisprudence. Harmonizing to the International Law Commission, the assorted signifiers of grounds of Customary International Law are listed as determinations of international and national tribunals, pacts, diplomatic correspondences, national statute laws, pattern of international organisations and international tribunals.

However, the importance of open national pattern during the formation of usage should ne’er be discounted despite credence of the indexs of province pattern. In the Continental shelf instance of Libya Versus Malta, accent of the ICJ was clear when the tribunal insisted it was self-evident for the stuffs of international jurisprudence to be chiefly looked for during the existent pattern and in the Opinio Juris of states irrespective of the many-sided conventions which may play critical functions in the definition and subsequent recording of regulations which are derived from usage or when they are being developed. In this instance hence, the finding of province pattern can be obtained from the length or extent of a specific pattern and the continuance of the pattern itself.

Extent of pattern

The extent of pattern when finding province pattern is critical for the initial formation and subsequent care of a customary regulation in which there is being of a general province pattern. In the Asylum Case, the ICJ clearly upheld that the province pattern can merely amount to jurisprudence if it was in conformity with its uniform and changeless usage and should be practiced by the provinces in inquiry. It besides insisted on the verve of an extended pattern by generalization of the states. For case, the Fisheries instance between UK and Norway put the issue of the ten-mile regulation in the limelight. However, the ICJ stated that the ten-mile regulation had non acquired the general regulation of jurisprudence authorization even though the regulation had already been adopted by some states in their pacts, conventions and national Torahs. This was because some other provinces had adopted a different bound.

The penetration that were given into the extent of pattern that was needed to organize a regulation of international customary Law was given by the ICJ in the instances of the North Sea Continental shelf. In which it stated that the province pattern which entailed that of other provinces whose involvements were chiefly affected ought to hold been virtually and extensively unvarying. The extent of the pattern which was needed in order to organize regulations of international customary jurisprudence can be given in the ICJ ‘s judgement of the Asylum Case in which it states that any party which to a great extent relied on a usage must be in place to turn out that the usage was established in such a manner that it had become binding to the other party involved and in any instance the regulation was invoked, it was supposed to be in conformity with the uniform and changeless use of pattern by the provinces which were involved and that the subsequent use of the usage was the look of the right which were concerned to the province which granted refuge and responsibility which was owed to the territorial province.

The international usage harmonizing to Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ is referred to as being grounds of a by and large practiced and accepted jurisprudence. Political expedience has been has been played out in legion instances and as a consequence, it may non be possible to wholly spot in all of the uniform and changeless use to be accepted as jurisprudence. In this instance, there should ever be an extended pattern by the generalization of the states or provinces in inquiry for any being of a regulation of any customary jurisprudence to take topographic point. There is no regulation that can be accepted or termed to be a regulation of customary jurisprudence if it fails to run into the set standard of extended pattern. Although it is non a must or vital for the customary jurisprudence to be in cosmopolitan pattern, the pattern in inquiry should ever be representative of at least the major socio-economic and political systems in the provinces in inquiry.

On the other manus, merely one individual act may take to the formation of a regulation of customary jurisprudence in the instance of where the act is accompanied with mass support for the action in inquiry. However, there are rare fortunes whereby an act can take to the constitution or formation of any customary regulation. This is because legal international regulations can non be easy altered or changed. A legal government can non be eliminated by one act which is deemed non to conform to the regulations unless the act is given overpowering support for it to be changed.


There is no specific clip frame needed for outgrowth of any regulation of customary jurisprudence. Provided that the generalization and consistence of the pattern has been formed, so there is no demand of a designated clip frame, continuance or period. The constitution of a regulation of customary jurisprudence can non be barred by the transition of merely a short period of clip. In kernel, the transition of short period of clip can non be a factor in itself towards the constitution a new regulation sing the customary jurisprudence. The lone demand therefore is that the customary jurisprudence should hold been virtually unvarying and extensively have been used and occurred in a mode to demo that there was general acknowledgment that legal duty or regulation of jurisprudence was involved and put into consideration. In this respect, the period or length of clip which is needed in order to set up a regulation of international jurisprudence will extremely depend on other factors which are pertinent to the alleged regulation of the international jurisprudence.

Opinio Juris

Opinio Juris refers to the psychological elements which draws the difference between behaviour and behavior in which the provinces in inquiry undertake due to the feeling that that there is a regulation of jurisprudence which need it and behavior or carry on that may be undertaken by the states out of political courtesy, expedience or other factors. The tribunals in some cases are willing to take into consideration the being of an opinio juris based on the handiness of the province pattern or other international courts, old tribunal findings or on a consensus in literature. The major challenge of the usage of opinio juris is one of cogent evidence since it is difficult to determine the clip of transmutation so as to do a pattern sing a regulation of jurisprudence.

There can non be regulations of customary international jurisprudence if province pattern and the opinio juris have non been formed and exited at the same time. State pattern was practiced in the cold warperiod. There was hostility and misgiving between the Sino-Soviet states and the Western Countries. The two sides gave their support to differing sides of a struggle in entire rebelliousness of each other. The Security Council was rendered uneffective and could non exert its rights whenever there was a human-centered crisis.

Interventions During the Cold War, 1945-1989

Most of the intercessions which happened during the cold war were ideological. One of the intercessions which had nil to make with the world powers but were regarded to be human-centered was the instance of India ( Bangladesh ) in East Bengal. After British ‘s backdown from India, two states ( India and Pakistan ) came into being. The two states were merely united by faith. The East Pakistan demanded liberty which was non granted after the elections held in 1990. This resulted into West Pakistan assailing East Pakistan taking to legion causalities. India attacked and defeated West Pakistan and it justified the intercession on human-centered evidences. The intercession was subsequently changed to self defence and people argued that India ‘s intercession was non a legal incidence of human-centered intercession. India ‘s intercession was more selfish than human-centered since the dividing up of Pakistan was meant for India ‘s ain security. India ‘s action was to a great extent criticized by the 104 states and the UN demanded India to retreat its military personnels from East Pakistan. It must be noted that the act was illegal but it may tag the start of a new regulation of customary international jurisprudence. India changed their justification from human-centered to self defence because they believed that human intercession was non legal.

The Tanzanian instance in Uganda in 1979 is another instance of indefensible human intercession. Idi Amin ‘s governments committed monolithic atrociousnesss against its ain people from 1971 to 1979. The brushs created belligerencies between Uganda and its adjacent Tanzania. Ugandan troops forcefully tried to annex portion of Tanzania, but they were met with monolithic repulsive force from Tanzania who toppled Idi Amin ‘s authorities in 1979 conveying to an terminal the atrociousnesss the Ugandan people were enduring from.

It was nevertheless argued that the primary motivation for Tanzania ‘s intercession in Uganda was self involvement even though Tanzania had justified it to be in self defence against Uganda ‘s aggression. Though some claimed that the intercession by Tanzania violated International Law, the state was non earnestly reprimanded. It was hence equivalent to state that the international community recognized the primacy of human self-respect of the people over the sovereignty.

Another intercession after the cold war was the instance of ECOWAS in Liberia in 1990. The National Patriotic Front of Liberia which was headed by Charles Taylor invaded the state and overthrew the government of Samuel Doe which it accused of maltreatment of human rights in the old old ages. Most of the state was controlled by NPFL forces while Doe took control of Monrovia. Civil war ensued and pandemonium was added with the separation of cabal from both parties. An estimated 1.3 million people fled the state or were internally displaced. The ECOWAS standing commission nevertheless justified the intercession on land that the there was a dislocation of jurisprudence and order in Liberia.

ECOWAS intervened in August 1990 but was attacked by the NPFl and other cabals that did non desire foreign intercession. ECOWAS after a piece managed to reconstruct peace, stableness and security in Liberia. The intercession by ECOWAS can be regarded to be a many-sided intercession which was motivated grounds. Even though the Security Council did non authorise the intercession, it positively commended ECOWAS for its attempts in conveying Sanity in Liberia.

In most fortunes, the party which claims the being of any usage is usually the one which is requested to turn out its being to turn out to the other party and convince it to be bound by that regulation. The function played by the opinio juris in the customary jurisprudence procedure was brought to the bow by ICJ. A critical analysis of the assorted instances of the one-sided human-centered intercessions as discussed above are clear indexs that the philosophy has become more acceptable to bulk of the provinces. Apart from the invasion of Iraq by the US, France and the UK which received small support and acknowledgment from the community of provinces because it lacked a regulation of the customary international jurisprudence, some other subsequent incidences gained some support from the international community and most from the United Nations ( UN ) .


The construct of one-sided human-centered intercession is important in modern epoch. It is immoral to let people to endure under the pretense of legal premises and theories. However, the regulations of international jurisprudence presently do non let one-sided human-centered intercession. Although the philosophy of one-sided human-centered intercession is indispensable, it can be misused if a proper step is non put in topographic point to command its application. Despite its ability to be misused, it is a good construct in the in safeguarding human rights and keeping universe peace. Therefore, a proper standard must be put in topographic point to supervise its usage.

The UN is the lone well-place organic structure that can outline the much needed guideline to modulate this philosophy. The commissariats of the UN Charter must be modified to let human-centered intercessions in instances where stipulated fortunes are met and, hence, the UN must invent a standard to be met before any human-centered intercessions are undertaken. This might non be an easy thing to acquire consensus on as some states would prefer ‘absolute sovereignty ‘ . However, this job can be overcome.


In order to avoid maltreatment of the philosophy, the UN should supply guidelines on human-centered intercessions. Therefore the commissariats of the UN Charter should be amended to supply for intercessions if certain conditions are met. The Security Council should be notified bay a state planning human-centered intercession. Second, it must be clear that the alleged misdemeanors are important and sum to the degree that “ wakes the scruples of the whole universe ” . The profaned rights should be basic human rights. Third, states with hapless path of human rights should non be allowed to carry on intercession steps. Further, it must be ascertained that any intercession is aimed at restricting human rights misdemeanors. Finally, the intervening state must go forth a state after eliminating human misdemeanors. If these recommendations are adhered to, so any concerns sing maltreatment of human-centered intercessions would be minimized and the philosophy would be widely acceptable.

Fernando R. Teson ( 2006 ) Eight Principles for Humanitarianism Intervention Journal of Military Ethical motives 5 ( 2 ) : 93-113

Rory J. Conces ( 2001 ) Justifying Coercive and Non-Coercive Intervention: Strategic and Human-centered Arguments. Acta Analytica 16 ( 27 ) :133-52

Dobos Ned ( 2010 ) . On Altruistic War and National Responsibility: Justifying Humanitarianism Intervention to Soldiers and Taxpayers. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 ( 1 ) .

Macklem Patrick ( 2008 ) . Humanitarianism Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in international Law. Ethical motives and International Affairs 22 ( 4 ) :369-393

Orwin Clifford ( 2006 ) . Humanitarianism Military Intervention: Wars for the End of History? Social Philosophy and Policy 23 ( 1 ) : 196-217.

Fonteyne, L. ( 1974 ) . The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention. Oxford Press.

Malanczuk, P. ( 2002 ) . Modern Introduction to International Law. Clarendon Press.

Brownlie, M. ( 1963 ) . International Law and the Use of Force by States. Clarendon Press.

Fenwick, G. ( 1945 ) . Intervention: Individual and Collective. Oxford Press.

Abiew, G. ( 1992 ) . The Development of the Doctrine and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention. Tomskin Publishers.