- 著者
-
東郷 育子
- 出版者
- 一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会
- 雑誌
- 国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.2000, no.125, pp.115-130,L15, 2000
When grave human misery such as genocide is committed in a country, should international society intervene regardless of sovereignty? To intervene in the domestic affairs of another nation has been illegal under the regime of traditional International Law. Recently, however, if a certain government seriously violates human rights of his citizens, or rulers clearly do not have the ability to govern, and the media reports of human catastrophes which arouse public opinion around the world, international society has enough and justifiable reasons to intervene in the concerned state.<br>The Gulf War was an important turning point in several respects that brought reform in humanitarian intervention of the Post-Cold War era. First, international society, especially the major powers, showed they could cooperate in taking military actions under the leadership of the United Nations. Second, the bases of permitting humanitarian intervention matured and the media performed an important function in this trend. Third, in order to realize intervention and persuade public opinion, various efficiencies of intervention, such as “zero casualty” and air raids, as a major strategy, have been important.<br>Success in the Gulf War introduced a more positive concept of humanitarian intervention. Namely, humanitarian intervention does not solely point to military intervention as a means of conflict resolution, but also includes broader methods such as humanitarian actions to prevent conflict itself and peace-building efforts after conflicts.<br>There still remain some questions regarding humanitarian intervention. For example, how should we set the standards to intervene? How can the operators maintain humanitarian neutrality and justice? What is the goal, and to what extent should intervention go? Only after we overcome these questions will the potential to build accountability for humanitarian intervention develop.<br>Humanitarian intervention in the 21st century must operate under the recognition of human conscience and social justice. At the same time it must pursue not self-interest but universal interest. In the medium to long term, humanitarian intervention must eliminate structural conditions and bases of human rights violation. In the long run, it must contribute to peace building and help the concerned state become independent as a modernized and democratized society. All actors who intervene-not only nations, but also regional organizations, international organizations, NGOs, and citizens-should be responsible for this final goal. The question of how we should undertake humanitarian intervention in this global society is indeed to understand how these actors intervene and work functionally in each role to assist the concerned state suffering human misery.