Introduction

Military interventions in internal conflicts raise legal, moral and practical questions that the international community is still struggling to address. The United Nations (UN) and other actors in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas have had uneven success in dealing with internal disputes and self-determination conflicts that threaten regional stability. Some interventions have conformed to, and reinforced, existing international law and procedures while others have been more ad hoc in nature. Some interventions have been successful while others have been deeply flawed. Still others that, in hindsight, might have been successful in saving thousands of lives never materialised at all.

Programme on Regional Responses to Internal War

In an effort to gain deeper insight and understanding of the diverse regional and national perspectives on who, when, where and why to intervene in civil wars, the Washington DC–based Fund for Peace has established a dedicated Programme on Regional Responses to Internal War. This programme probes regional views on military intervention criteria, regional capabilities and international assistance in dealing with internal war. It will identify areas of convergence as well as divergence within regions, drawing comparisons between regions to explore the unique mix of cultural, political and security issues that are influencing decision making. The programme will focus particularly on the experiences of the past ten years and on how they have influenced opinion.

It is believed that the programme will enrich the global debate on the issue by providing new insights into the trend toward regional responsibility in peacekeeping, with a focus on where the crises have been occurring. The programme will also assess the implications of these findings for the United States (US) as it debates its own foreign policy role and responsibilities in addressing humanitarian crises and self-determination disputes.

Specifically, the Fund for Peace will probe regional views on five unresolved sets of issues:

Legitimacy and agency: Should there be new criteria and agents or organisations to authorise legal military intervention? How would emerging norms relate to current international law and how would new agents work with the UN?



Hegemony: How are norms of intervention affected by the dominance of one or two powers in a region or by concerns about an emerging power with regional ambitions?



Changing sovereignty: Has the question of military intervention to protect abused minorities and to stop widespread violation of human rights created new concepts of sovereignty? Do these concepts differ among regions?



Resources: What resources in each region are available or allotted to intervention? Are new mechanisms needed to increase capability and to allocate resources in a more effective and equitable way?



Regional role: Can and should regional actors and multilateral institutions play a more significant role in responding to internal wars? How do uneven capabilities among regions affect the ability to act?

The Fund for Peace will sponsor four regional conferences in Washington DC between October 2001 and October 2002, that will bring together some 35 participants from each of the regions (Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas) to discuss views on military intervention. The first such meeting for the African region was held from 7–10 October 2001. After rich and intense debate on the vexing issues outlined above, it was apparent (and remarkable) that sufficient consensus had emerged to actually produce a conference statement on criteria for intervention in African civil wars. The final draft reads as follows:

“In Africa, each conflict has unique causes and will require unique solutions. A case-specific approach will have to be taken in addressing internal war. This implies that though the criteria defined below may justify a decision to intervene militarily, they should not be read as constituting an obligation to intervene. Military intervention should also be considered an instrument of last resort, to be applied only after it has been established that diplomatic instruments cannot be successful. None of the criteria listed below should be misused by any nation as a justification for pursuing its own political objectives. Military intervention should be undertaken in a holistic framework of building peace and stability. While no rigid set of rules can be applied, military intervention should be guided by a general framework of criteria that follows international law and regionally acceptable processes and norms.”1

While unanimity on every point was not achieved, African conference participants reached sufficient agreement to offer the following framework for Africa.

Framework for Africa

Criteria for military intervention in internal war:

The UN Security Council is the preferred authorising body for military intervention.



In emergencies in which urgent action is needed, military intervention may be authorised by the African Union (OAU) or sub-regional organisations, but the Security Council must be informed and ex post facto approval must be sought. Sub-regional organisations must likewise inform and seek approval from the OAU (African Union).



Military intervention is legitimate when mass killings, mass atrocities or ethnic cleansing are occurring or are threatening to occur. This includes genocide or acts of genocide.2



Military intervention is legitimate when the stability of a region or sub-region is threatened by internal war in a nation.



Military intervention may be considered when other means have failed to restore a democratic government that has been overthrown by force.



Military intervention in Africa can legitimately be carried out by troops:

a. from the sub-region under the auspices of the sub-regional organisations
b. from the region under the auspices of the OAU (African Union)
c. under the auspices of the UN.



In exceptional cases, military inter-vention may be carried out legitimately by an African coalition of the willing, provided that any such coalition immediately seeks ex post facto authorisation from the UN Security Council, the African Union, or from the relevant sub-regional organisation.3



A military intervention:

• must have a clear purpose, mission, and mandate that is publicly stated in advance
• must do more good than harm
• must be implemented in a way that is proportionate to its mandate and stated purpose
• must be implemented in an even-handed way
• must be implemented in a way consistent with international law
• must be properly resourced with financial and material support.



As stated in the preamble, military intervention should be undertaken within a holistic framework that addresses the root causes and conditions of the conflict and builds peace and stability. This should not be construed as an obstacle to a rapid response to a crisis situation.

Notes

Conference Statement, Airlie House, 9 October 2001.



All expressed a concern with the violent uprooting and displacement of massive numbers of people through the use of terror, and some argued that it should be a criterion for military intervention.



This criterion did receive majority approval but was argued against by a minority.