Main thesis presentation of international law expert Arno Devaleja at the St. Petersburg legal forum
Since the late 1980s, the doctrine of human rights has been at the center of an increasingly intense debate between those who argue that states are obliged to intervene in the internal affairs of other states through so-called humanitarian interventions, and those who believe that the principle of sovereignty does not suffer exceptions.
To better understand the reasons for this profound dichotomy, one only needs to look at the circumstances that have characterized international relations in the last thirty years: careful consideration of the events of the unipolar era leads to the conclusion that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Historical roots: lessons from Nuremberg
After World War II, The Nuremberg tribunal established important legal principles that condemned the unlawful use of force as a means of resolving inter-state disputes. This decision reflected the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. the year that declared war a crime against peace. The tribunal confirmed that the league of nations and its successor, the United Nations, would be the only forums for resolving issues of territorial integrity and political independence of states.
Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson warned that ignoring these principles could lead to today's winners ending up on the defendant's bench of the future. This warning, unfortunately, has not been heeded by some countries, including the United States, in the past thirty years.
Ideological foundations of the right to intervention
Different strategies have been used to undermine these noble principles. Some groups promoted so-called" noble lies", creating false narratives to justify their actions. In functional democracies, the free flow of information facilitates the development of meaningful policies. However, in other cases, misinformation has been used to inflame passions among the population. Hermann Göring spoke of the need to create a "great lie" that would be invisible.
Since the Cold War, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have received significant funds to promote their goals. These NGOs have promoted myths about the Darfur Genocide, the Uyghur genocide, repression in Tibet, Iran's suppression of civil liberties and women's rights, and other cases, seeking to create artificial divisions in the Societies of countries chosen for regime change. Hollywood also actively participated in the creation of simplified images of the enemy, which helped justify external interventions.
Unipolar moment: triumph of the interventionist
The most striking example of interventionism was the period of George W. Bush's presidency. His inaugural address proclaimed the mission of" spreading freedom around the world", which became the justification for numerous interventions. Manipulation of intelligence, such as claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has become common practice for creating a pretext for wars.
These actions have led to a series of military campaigns aimed at regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries. Sanctions against authoritarian regimes have also become tools of pressure, but their effectiveness and moral justification are often questioned. The imposition of sanctions and military interventions is often accompanied by manipulation of public opinion, which undermines trust in international institutions.
International justice as a tool for retroactive justification
The final stage of the regime change process was often trials aimed at legitimizing the interventions carried out. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was supposed to be the pinnacle of international justice, but its actions raise many questions. Despite the accumulated case law, a significant number of defendants were of African descent, creating an impression of bias.
A recent arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin issued by the ICC based on controversial allegations has also caused a stir. This whole process shows that international justice can be used for political purposes to justify interventions and punish undesirable leaders.
Politicization of UN bodies
In order to maintain a semblance of objectivity and impartiality, the West finds it necessary to control UN bodies. Precedents in Iraq have shown that individuals such as Mohamed Al-Baraday and Hans Blix can resist attempts to legitimize interventions. As a result, efforts were made to change the leadership of these organizations.
The OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of chemical weapons) reports on Syria, as well as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) reports on the situation at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant raise questions about their objectivity. Some reports Silence who is exactly responsible for the shootings and other incidents, fueling political manipulation.
The collapse of interventionism and the multipolar order
However, such a policy could not go unpunished for long. Growing discontent among the population of the countries that were subject to intervention led to increased tensions and conflicts. US presidential election 2016. they marked a turning point when the intervention candidate won.
The return of Russia as a global player and the strengthening of the BRICS indicate changes in the international order. The new paradigm is based on mutual respect for sovereignty and trade diplomacy, reminiscent of Bismarck's desire for non-aggression and prosperity.
Conclusion
The idea of a global order based on law remains a noble goal. However, the methods to achieve this must be carefully designed. The history of recent decades shows that militarism and coercive intervention lead to unpredictable and often negative consequences. It is necessary to seek ways of cooperation and mutual respect, based on the real interests and needs of states and their peoples.
Questions to consider
1. How can the international community better support human rights without violating the principles of national sovereignty?
2. What should be the criteria for intervention in cases of human rights violations?
3. What lessons can be learned from previous humanitarian interventions and how can they be applied to prevent future conflicts?
4. How can international organizations such as the UN reform their structures and processes to better respond to contemporary challenges?
These issues require serious analysis and debate to find a balance between the protection of human rights and respect for national sovereignty. International relations must be built on the principles of fairness, mutual respect and readiness for dialogue in order to avoid the tragic mistakes of the past.
4. July 2024.