suffering…for generations to come” supports the argument. 336 Why should a nation wait for such destruction, either to its own population or another’s bef ore intervening? The ex-ante vs ex-post argument is not a revolutionary concept, the Caroline Test was recognised following the Nuremberg Tribunals of 1945, outlining support of any necessary, proportionate act of pre-emptive self-defence. However, the “glacial speed” at which the UN responds to a crisis presents the second necessary rectification; the legal reform permitting unilateral humanitarian military interventions. 337 As discussed within Chapter 3, under current legislation a military intervention must receive approval from the UNSC prior to deployment, without which, any action taken becomes illegal under international law. However, due to the veto power of permanent UN members it is very difficult for an intervention, specifically from a Western democracy to achieve such approval. States such as Russia and China remain very anti- intervention for “ideological and self - interested reasons” 338 , as shown in 1999 during calls for action in Kosovo. This offers an excellent example of an illegal but legitimate intervention where despite a lack of UNSC approval, humanitarian action was successfully accomplished. As argued by Daniele Archibugi; “if humanitarian action can be successful at halting egregious violations of human without having the proper legal basis, why should we care whether an intervener has the legal right to intervene?” 339 This has been successfully displayed through India's intervention in Bangladesh, 336 Advisory Opinion, ‘Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, International Court of Justice , (July 8 th , 1996) 337 Annelie Wambeek, ‘ Humanitarian Military Intervention: Assessing the Need for Revision’, E-International Relations, (May 12 th , 2015), <http://www.e-ir.info/2015/05/12/humanitarian-military-intervention- assessing-the-need-for-revision/> [accessed 30/04/2016] 338 Chu Shulong, ‘China, Asia and Issues of Intervention and Sovereignty’, Pugwash Occasional Papers: Intervention, Sovereignty and International Security , 2.1, (2001) 339 Daniele Archibugi, ‘Cosmopolitan Humanitarian Intervention is Never Unilateral’, International Relations , 19.2, (2005), pp. 225.
138
Made with FlippingBook HTML5