This thesis aims at the resolution of a dilemma which has been bothering international lawyers for at least two decades, namely whether armed intervention as a response to gross and massive human rights violations is ever legally justified without the authorization by the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Thus far, international lawyers may be said to have been caught between giving a negative answer on the basis of the rules in the Charter, and a 'turn to ethics', i.e. declaring humanitarian intervention legitimate on moral grounds, while leaving questions of legality to the side. These two camps may be termed 'positivists' and 'moralists' respectively. In this thesis, a third solution to this dilemma is proposed. The idea is presented that many equitable principles may qualify as 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations' - the third principal source of international law, a conclusion based upon detailed research of both national legal systems and the international legal system itself. These principles, having normative force in international law, are then used to craft an equitable framework for humanitarian intervention. It is argued that the dynamics of their operation allow them to interact with the UN Charter regime and customary international law in order to fill gaps in the existing legal structure and soften the rigours of strict law in extreme circumstances. It is asserted that many of the arguments of the moralists are justified, albeit based upon firm legal principles rather than ethical and philosophical theory. The equitable framework proffered in the final chapter is designed to provide an answer to the question of how the concept of humanitarian intervention may be integrated into the realm of law. Certainly, this will not mean an end to controversies regarding concrete cases of humanitarian intervention. However, it will enable the framing of such controversies in legal terms, rather than as a choice between the law and morality.

In this article, Ciarán J. Burke argues that the 'Responsibility to Protect' initiative has failed. Burke presents a series of fundamental flaws, both with the doctrine advanced by the ICISS, and with the subsequent attempts to incorporate it into the international legal framework. Burke opines that equity, as a source of international law, should instead be used to shed fresh light on the debate, keeping the discourse within the law and away from subjective ethics, and drafting a novel framework which he dubs 'equitable humanitarian intervention'

This book aims to resolve the dilemma regarding whether armed intervention as a response to gross human rights violations is ever legally justified without Security Council authorisation. Thus far, international lawyers have been caught between giving a negative answer on the basis of the UN Charter's rules ('positivists'), and a 'turn to ethics', declaring intervention legitimate on moral grounds, while eschewing legal analysis ('moralists'). In this volume, a third solution is proposed. The idea is presented that many equitable principles may qualify as 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations' - one of the three principal sources of international law (though a category that is often overlooked) - a conclusion based upon detailed research of both national legal systems and international law. These principles, having normative force in international law, are then used to craft an equitable framework for humanitarian intervention. It is argued that the dynamics of their operation allow them to interact with the Charter and customary law in order to fill gaps in the existing legal structure and soften the rigours of strict law in certain circumstances. It is posited that many of the moralists' arguments are justified, albeit based upon firm legal principles rather than ethical theory. The equitable framework proposed is designed to provide an answer to the question of how humanitarian intervention may be integrated into the legal realm. Certainly, this will not mean an end to controversies regarding concrete cases of humanitarian intervention. However, it will enable the framing of such controversies in legal terms, rather than as a choice between the law and morality. '...has potential to become one of the most important books in public international law of the decade, or in a generation'. Martin Scheinin, Professor of Public International Law, European University Institute, Florence

The book reconciles the conflicts and legal ambiguities between African Union and ECOWAS law on the use of force on the one hand, and the UN Charter and international law on the other hand. In view of questions relating to African Union and UN relationship in the maintenance of international peace and security in Africa in recent years, the book examines the legal issues involved and how they can be resolved. By explaining the legal theory underpinning the validity of the AU-ECOWAS laws, the work provides a legal basis for the adoption of the AU-ECOWAS laws as the frameworks for the implementation of the R2P in Africa.

An examination of the historical narratives surrounding humanitarian intervention, presenting an undogmatic, alternative history of human rights protection.

Volume I. Law, ethics, and theories -- volume II. Humanitarian intervention in history -- volume III. Humanitarian intervention in contemporary practice -- volume IV. Beyond humanitarian intervention : the responsibility to protect

This work addresses the question of whether the use of military force by the United States in order to stop serious violations of human rights is legally and morally justifiable. The book argues for humanitarian intervention and the right to wage war in defense of human rights.

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.