The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, and a Partial Solution

Abstract

When the United Nations (UN) was formed, one of its most important goals was to render war obsolete. The UN Charter states as a goal the hope to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”1 When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first described his vision for a post-World War II international organization, he envisioned an organization that would promote and facilitate “international cooperation . . . to consider and deal with the problem of world relations.”2 He also wanted a council that would “concern itself with peaceful settlement of international disputes.”3 The UN Charter itself took the then-unprecedented step of outlawing war, stating that “all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” and that “all Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”4 However, the UN Charter does not address the important potential exception of humanitarian intervention. This lack of clarity has led to a robust debate that continues to this day—can a state legitimately use