6.5 Humanitarian Intervention and its Justifications

The doctrine's line: the force's use (or its threat) to stop mass atrocities — against the Charter's non-intervention-and-non-use-of-force architecture. The justifications' history: the classical intervention's lore (the 19th-century's humanitarian pretexts); the 1990s' cases (the Somalia- Bosnia-Rwanda-Kosovo sequence — the "Kosovo: illegal but legitimate" report's famous formula); the Iraq-2003's abuse (the humanitarian justification's discrediting). The answer: R2P — the 2001 ICISS report's reframing and the 2005 World Summit's adoption (paras 138-139): the three pillars (the state's own protection duty; the international assistance-and-capacity; the timely-decisive response through the SC where the state manifestly fails) — the responsibility (not right) to protect; the Libya-2011's application and abuse-debate (the mandate's stretch — the "responsibility while protecting" answer); the Syria-Myanmar's inaction (the veto's block — the R2P's political ceiling). The exam's frame: the intervention vs the R2P — from the right to barge in to the duty to protect, still searching for its machinery.