Evaluate The View That Human Rights Are More Effectively Protected By Humanitarian Intervention Than By International Courts and Tribunals.

Question 1

Paragraph 1: Humanitarian Interventions’ Ability to Prevent Immediate Human Rights Violations

Answer 1

For:
Humanitarian interventions can provide immediate protection, unlike international courts which cannot enforce binding decisions. Post-Cold War unipolarity and U.S. leadership enabled frequent interventions.

• Kosovo (1999): NATO bypassed UNSC veto, halted mass violence against ethnic Albanians, forced Yugoslav withdrawal, and established de facto independent Kosovo.
• East Timor (1999): INTERFET (Australian-led, UN-backed) stopped violence by pro-Indonesian militias, restored order, and enabled independence.
• Libya (2011): NATO, authorised by UNSC, prevented a massacre in Benghazi and helped overthrow Gaddafi under R2P doctrine.

Interventions also deter potential perpetrators by signalling that sovereignty is conditional on protecting populations.

Against:
Humanitarian interventions are now rare due to:

• China and Russia’s rise — strong defenders of sovereignty and opponents of R2P, using UNSC vetoes (e.g., Syria crisis) to block interventions.
• U.S. isolationism — post-Iraq/Afghanistan, U.S. no longer plays a global policing role (Obama to Trump to Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan 2021).

This limits the ability to intervene in crises today (e.g., Rohingya Genocide, Sudanese civil war), though some like Uyghur Genocide would not attract intervention anyway.

Judgement:
Interventions were once effective, but changing geopolitics and opposition now severely limit their ability. International courts, despite flaws, are currently more effective.

Question 2

International Courts’ Ability to Uphold Rights and Hold Perpetrators Accountable

Answer 2

For:
International courts influence state behaviour without infringing sovereignty — a liberal view emphasises rules-based order and moral pressure.
* ECHR:
o Goodwin v. UK (2002): Led to Gender Recognition Act, demonstrating influence on domestic reform.
* ICJ:The ICJ is also able to protect human rights by settling disputes between states and creating pressure on states to comply, especially as states consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and are supposed to accept its judgements as binding.
For example, in Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda 2022, the ICJ ordered Uganda to pay $325 million in reparations to the DRC for its military intervention during the late 1990s that included human rights abuses and the illegal exploitation of natural resources. Uganda complied with the judgement and has made the first payment.
o
* ICC & Tribunals:
o Thomas Lubanga (2012): 14 years for child soldier recruitment (DRC).
o ICTY: Convicted 90 war criminals (e.g., Radovan Karadžić, 40 years for Srebrenica massacre).
Against:
Realists argue courts lack enforceability due to state sovereignty:
* ICJ: Requires state consent; no U.S. cases despite War on Terror abuses.
* Myanmar (Rohingya Genocide): ICJ’s 2020 provisional ruling ignored.
* ECHR: Relies on political will — Russia ignored rulings pre-2022 expulsion; UK ignored 2005 Hirst ruling (prisoner voting).
Judgement:
State sovereignty limits court power, but they remain more effective today than humanitarian interventions through moral pressure and prosecuting individuals.

Question 3

How Powerful States Undermine International Courts

Answer 3

For Humanitarian Interventions:
Courts disproportionately affect weaker states; powerful ones evade accountability:
* ICC: 70 states (including Russia, China, U.S.) haven’t signed the Rome Statute, limiting ICC’s reach.
* No ICC action on Uyghur Genocide due to China’s non-membership.
* All 31 ICC indictments pre-2023 were from African states — prompting AU backlash and bias claims.
Against Humanitarian Interventions:
They also disproportionately target weaker states and cause civilian harm:
* Kosovo (1999): NATO bombings killed hundreds of civilians.
* Iraq War: U.S. used humanitarian rhetoric but caused ~200,000 civilian deaths.
* Interventions avoid targeting allies (e.g., Israel) or powerful states (China, Russia) despite abuses.
Courts improving:
* 2023 ICC warrant for Putin (Ukraine).
* 2024 ICC arrest warrants: Netanyahu, Gallant (Israel); Sinwar (Hamas) — showing ICC can act against powerful leaders when jurisdiction allows.
Judgement:
Both interventions and courts fail to uphold universal human rights due to power politics. Yet, as interventions are unlikely and courts are achieving some accountability, courts are more effective today.