التدخل الدولي الإنساني في ضوء القانون الدولي المعاصر

Abstract

Intervention on the grounds of restoring an internationally acceptable level of human rights standards is the most controversial enforcement option of human rights law.
The seriousness of humanitarian intervention in being a kind of interference, and that means that it leads to the violation of the principle of sovereignty which is very important in a International public law.
Humanitarian intervention involving the use of force in the internal affairs of other people in the name of (human) purposes. The doctrine was one of numerous theories that served to (justify) the enslavement of (uncivilized) peoples. European powers, in the name of (human) end and under the pretext of (protecting) ethnic and religious minorities.
The United Nations charter prohibits not only the use of force, but also the threat of using force. As it provided in Article 2/4.When human rights violations depose threat to international peace, then the Security Council has the authority to deal with this under its chapter (VII) enforcement power, which includes the power to adopt binding economic or diplomatic sanctions as well as the power to decide upon forcible measures.
During the years of the cold war, the council rarely acted in its enforcement capacity to adopt measures of any kind. The topic of intervention in the domestic affairs of states has been the subject of an animated debate for quite some time. This debate seems to have gained a new impetus lately as a result of the transformation that the world has been undergoing in the last few years.
Regional organizations are able to play a more active role in suppressing mass human rights violations. However, under the United Nations charter, no enforcement action may be taken by regional organizations without proper authorization of the Security Council (Article 53/1).
Intervention must be on behalf of the "humanities", without self interest or expectation of national political, economic or military gain.