This book examines the international law of forcible intervention in civil wars, in particular the role of party-consent in affecting the legality of such intervention. In modern international law, it is a near consensus that no state can use force against another - the main exceptions being self-defence and actions mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. However, one more potential exception exists: forcible intervention undertaken upon the invitation or consent of a government, seeking assistance in confronting armed opposition groups within its territory. Although the latter exception is of increasing importance, the numerous questions it raises have received scant attention in the current body of literature. This volume fills this gap by analyzing the consent-exception in a wide context, and attempting to delineate its limits, including cases in which government consent power is not only negated, but might be transferred to opposition groups. The book also discusses the concept of consensual intervention in contemporary international law, in juxtaposition to traditional legal doctrines. It traces the development of law in this context by drawing from historical examples such as the Spanish Civil War, as well as recent cases such those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. This book will be of much interest to students of international law, civil wars, the Responsibility to Protect, war and conflict studies, and IR in general.

This book asks whether states have the right to intervene in foreign civil conflicts for humanitarian reasons. The UN Charter prohibits state aggression, but many argue that such a right exists as an exception to this rule. Offering a thorough analysis of this issue, the book puts NATO's action in Kosovo in its proper legal perspective.

The question of when or if a nation should intervene in another country’s affairs is one of the most important concerns in today’s volatile world. Taking John Stuart Mill’s famous 1859 essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” as his starting point, international relations scholar Michael W. Doyle addresses the thorny issue of when a state’s sovereignty should be respected and when it should be overridden or disregarded by other states in the name of humanitarian protection, national self-determination, or national security. In this time of complex social and political interplay and increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, Doyle reinvigorates Mill’s principles for a new era while assessing the new United Nations doctrine of responsibility to protect. In the twenty-first century, intervention can take many forms: military and economic, unilateral and multilateral. Doyle’s thought-provoking argument examines essential moral and legal questions underlying significant American foreign policy dilemmas of recent years, including Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

During the 1990s, humanitarian intervention seemed to promise a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would be privileged over national interests or imperial ambitions. Orford provides critical readings of the narratives that accompanied such interventions and shaped legal justifications for the use of force by the international community. Through a close reading of legal texts and institutional practice, she argues that a far more circumscribed, exploitative and conservative interpretation of the ends of intervention was adopted during this period. The book draws on a wide range of sources, including critical legal theory, feminist and postcolonial theory, psychoanalytic theory and critical geography, to develop ways of reading directed at thinking through the cultural and economic effects of militarized humanitarianism. The book concludes by asking what, if anything, has been lost in the move from the era of humanitarian intervention to an international relations dominated by wars on terror.

This book investigates the extent to which traditional international law regulating foreign interventions in internal conflicts has been affected by the human rights paradigm. Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, foreign armed interventions in internal conflicts have turned into a common practice. At first sight, it might seem that state practice has developed in a chaotic fashion, however on closer examination, specific patterns emerge. The book charts these patterns by examining the traditional doctrines of intervention and testing them against state practise. The book has two aims. Firstly, it seeks to clarify the current legal framework regulating interventions in internal conflicts. Secondly, it plots the emergence of new trends and investigates whether they are becoming part of positive international law. By taking this dual focus, it offers the first truly comprehensive examination of foreign interventions in internal conflicts.

Over the centuries, societies have gradually developed constraints on the use of armed force in the conduct of foreign relations. The crowning achievement of these efforts occurred in the midtwentieth century with the general acceptance among the states of the world that the use of military force for territorial expansion was unacceptable. A central challenge for the twenty-first century rests in reconciling these constraints with the increasing desire to protect innocent persons from human rights deprivations that often take place during civil war or result from persecution by autocratic governments. Humanitarian Intervention is a detailed look at the historical development of constraints on the use of force and at incidents of humanitarian intervention prior to, during, and after the Cold War.

Praise for previous edition: “...a comprehensive, meticulously-researched study of contemporary international law governing the use of armed force in international relations...' Andrew Garwood-Gowers, Queensland University of Technology Law Review, Volume 12(2) When this first English language edition of The Law Against War published it quickly established itself as a classic. Detailed, analytically rigorous and comprehensive, it provided an indispensable guide to the legal framework regulating the use of force. Now a decade on the much anticipated new edition brings the work up to date. It looks at new precedents arising from the Arab Spring; the struggle against the "Islamic State" in Iraq and Syria; and the conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen. It also reflects the new doctrinal debates surrounding recent state practice. Previous positions are reconsidered and in some cases revised, notably the question of consensual intervention and the very definition of force, particularly, to accommodate targeted extrajudicial executions and cyber-operations. Finally, the new edition provides detailed coverage of the concept of self-defense, reflecting recent interpretations of the International Court of Justice and the ongoing controversies surrounding its definition and interpretation.

This book explores the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law. It examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the increasing role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter framework is under challenge. Russia's invasion of Georgia and intervention in Ukraine, the USA's military operations in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's campaign to restore the government of Yemen by force all raise questions about the law on intervention. The 'war on terror' that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA has not been won. It has spread far beyond Afghanistan: it has led to targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and to intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Is there an expanding right of self-defence against non-state actors? Is the use of force effective? The development of nuclear weapons by North Korea has reignited discussion about the legality of pre-emptive self-defence. The NATO-led operation in Libya increased hopes for the implementation of 'responsibility to protect', but it also provoked criticism for exceeding the Security Council's authorization of force because its outcome was regime change. UN peacekeeping faces new challenges, especially with regard to the protection of civilians, and UN forces have been given revolutionary mandates in several African states. But the 2015 report Uniting Our Strengths reaffirmed that UN peacekeeping is not suited to counter-terrorism or enforcement operations; the UN should turn to regional organizations such as the African Union as first responders in situations of ongoing armed conflict.

This study tackles a controversial topic in international law and contemporary international relations, namely, the legality of intervention by a major power against weaker states within the same geographic region. Specifically, the author examines the practice of United States intervention in the Western Hemisphere, with particular emphasis on the relationship between the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean neighbours. The work highlights six cases of U.S. intervention-Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, Nicaragua in 1985, and Panama in 1989. In each case the United States arguably violated international law and the sovereignty of the states involved but claimed it had a right to intervene to protect the lives of its nationals or to defend its national security against an external threat. These cases amply demonstrate the conflict between international law on the one hand, and regional norms, power politics, and political doctrines on the other. They also illustrate how international law can be manipulated to advance the foreign policy goals of a major power. The author adopts an interdisciplinary approach, combining international law, political doctrines, international relations theory and historical antecedents, to provide a better understanding of the relationship between a major power and its subordinates and of the relevance of international law in such a relationship.