ABSTRACT

UK governments have often claimed that humanitarian intervention – without the consent of the target state and if necessary without express UN Security Council authorization – is legally permissible in exceptional circumstances, a stance that is highly controversial. The UK’s position is at odds with prevailing international legal doctrine, which is counterintuitive for a country that is generally committed to international law, the UN framework, and multilateralism. It is also in tension with normative developments related to human protection, such as the international ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principle, which established that coercive responses to human suffering must be authorized by the UN Security Council. This article explores the background to the UK’s position on humanitarian intervention, and it argues that this reflects an element of continuity in the UK’s foreign policy in historical perspective, as a legacy of global engagement and a sense of moral righteousness and duty. The article also considers whether the UK’s position may be contributing to an evolution of the norms governing the use of force for human protection.

摘要

英国政府经常声称，人道主义干预——未经目标国同意，必要时未经联合国安理会明确授权——在特殊情况下在法律上是允许的，这一立场极具争议。英国的立场与盛行的国际法学说不一致，这对于一个普遍致力于国际法、联合国框架和多边主义的国家来说是违反直觉的。它还与与人类保护有关的规范发展紧张，例如国际“保护责任”原则，该原则规定对人类痛苦的强制性反应必须得到联合国安理会的授权。本文探讨了英国在人道主义干预方面的立场的背景，它认为，这反映了英国外交政策从历史角度看的连续性元素，作为全球参与的遗产以及道德正义感和责任感。文章还考虑了英国的立场是否可能有助于规范使用武力保护人类的规范的演变。