differing interpretations of legality from one scholar to the next. Essentially, the pivotal concept remains the act in which a threat to security is substantial enough to legitimise intervention, thus prioritising the victims over the sovereignty of the state. Fernando Tesón argues that those states that fail to protect the “natural rights of its citizens” lose their sovereignty, and thus become susceptible to a legitimate international intervention. 294 I certainly agree that the primary focus of the UN should be the individual rather than the sovereignty of the state, of whom, as Tesón suggests, hold questionable authority over their population, thus legitimising an intervention in the hope of ensuring the security of the individual. 295 developed significantly from the end of the Cold War, with a significant focus on a new found sense of morality within the legitimacy debate. Key schools of thought including Realism, Marxism, Cosmopolitanism and Constructivism have all expressed varied opinions on the UN’s use of force to obtain peace during the 1990’s, all of which will be analysed to support the argument for the application of military operations to pursue peace. Comprehension of the theoretical framework allows us to understand, as J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane argue; that “our common human nature generates common moral duties – including, in some versions, a right of humanitarian intervention.” 296 3.2 Theoretical framework Theoretical perceptions of humanitarian military interventions
294 Fernando Tesón, Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry Into Law and Morality, (Transnational, 1997), pp.15. 295 Ibid. 296 Robert Keohane and J. L. Holzgrefe, Humanitarian Intervention: ethical, legal and political dilemmas , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003)
124
Made with FlippingBook HTML5