Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:27:31.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chasing the Frontier in Humanitarian Intervention Law: The Case for Aequitas ad Bellum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2015

Colin SEOW
Colin SEOW*
Affiliation:
Supreme Court, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question whether humanitarian intervention may ever be lawfully carried out unilaterally outside the scope of Chapter VII of the UN Charter has captured the interest of many for years. Faced with legal formalist arguments under the UN Charter, those otherwise favouring the idea of humanitarian intervention often retreat into an apologist stance by conceding too quickly the lack of cogent legal justifications therefor, preferring instead to rely on moral and ethical reasoning. The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, while seemingly promising when first mooted in 2001, has since effectively been rendered obsolete as a justification for unilateral humanitarian intervention following the UN World Summit in 2005. By examining the role that equity plays in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute, this paper advances the view that an aequitas ad bellum exists in international law that, under certain strict conditions, enables unilateral humanitarian intervention to be lawfully carried out.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 294 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Singapore. LLB (National University of Singapore); LLM (Harvard University). The author would like to register his gratitude to Professor Gabriella Blum for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The views expressed in this paper are the author’s personal views and do not in any way represent the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Any error in the paper is solely the author’s.

References

1. ANNAN, Kofi, “Two Concepts of Sovereignty” The Economist (16 September 1999)Google Scholar, online: The Economist <http://www.economist.com/node/324795>.

2. PUFENDORF, Samuel, Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis Libri Duo, trans. William A. OLDFATHER (Clarendon Press, 1931) at 22Google Scholar; quote reproduced in ROSSI, Christopher R., Equity and International Law: A Legal Realist Approach to the Process of International Decision-making (Transnational Publishers, 1993), at 26Google Scholar.

3. PRZETACZNIK, Frank, “The Right of Self-Defense as an Exception to the Prohibition of War” (1993) 5 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law 119 at 119Google Scholar.

4. von CLAUSEWITZ, Carl, HOWARD, Michael Eliot, and PARET, Peter, eds., On War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976) at 87Google Scholar.

5. Ibid. See further DEACON, Roger, “Clausewitz and Foucault: War and Power” (2003) 31 Scientia Militaria 37Google Scholar.

6. Clausewitz et al., supra note 4.

7. 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations, 29 April 1919, [1919] UKTS 4 (Cmd. 153) (entered into force 10 January 1920).

8. Treaty Between the United States and Other Powers Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, 27 August 1928, 94 LNTS 57 (entered into force 24 July 1929).

9. Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031 (entered into force 24 October 1945) [UN Charter].

10. Some regional efforts against war as a legal institution included the 1928 Sixth Pan-American Conference at Havana Resolution, the 1933 Saavedra Lamas Anti-War Treaty, the 1945 Arab League, the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States, and the 1948 Pact of Bogota; see Przetacznik, supra note 3 at 120.

11. These narrow circumstances are envisaged under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and shall be discussed further below.

12. Notably demonstrated in the cases of Rwanda, Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and, more recently, Syria.

13. UN Charter, art. 1(3), supra note 9. See further BELLAMY, Alex J., “Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit” (2006) 20 Ethics & International Affairs 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. See United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Internally Displaced People”, online: UNHCR <http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c146.html>.

15. See e.g. HOLZGREFE, J.L. and KEOHANE, Robert O., eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; WEISS, Thomas G., Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

16. UN Charter, art. 1(1), supra note 9.

17. Ibid., art. 39.

18. Lawrence Emeka MODEME, “The Libya Humanitarian Intervention: Is it Lawful in International Law?” Academia.Edu, online: Academia.Edu <https://www.academia.edu/576116/The_Libya_Humanitarian_Intervention_Is_it_Lawful_in_International_Law>.

19. See GREENFIELD, Daniel, “Can There Be Peace Without War?” Canada Free Press (28 September 2009)Google Scholar, online: Canada Free Press <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15176>.

20. See generally CHESTERMAN, Simon, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. The protection of human rights has been judicially regarded by the ICJ as a “humanitarian objective”: see Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14 at [268].

22. CASSESE, Antonio, “Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving Towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law at 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. SIMMA, Bruno, “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law at 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Ibid. at 22.

25. Cassese, , supra note 22 at 25Google Scholar.

26. Ibid. (emphasis in original).

27. A good summary of which can be gleaned in Simma, supra note 23 at 2–5.

28. Supra note 21.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. In 1986, the UK Foreign Office also issued a policy document stating, inter alia, that “the case against making humanitarian intervention an exception to the principle of non-intervention is that its doubtful benefits would be heavily outweighed by its costs in terms of respect for international law”: see UK Foreign Office Policy Document No. 148 (available at (1986) 57 British Yearbook of International Law 614).

32. UN Charter, art. 1(4), supra note 9.

33. See also Cassese, , supra note 22 at 24–25Google Scholar.

34. FRANCK, Thomas M., Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 138–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. Ibid. at 136.

36. Franck, Supra note 34.

37. BURKE, Ciarán, An Equitable Framework for Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013) at 15Google Scholar (referring to Simma, supra note 23).

38. Annan, supra note 1.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid. (emphasis in original).

41. See e.g. REISMAN, Michael, “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law” in Gregory H. FOX and Brad R. ROTH, eds., Democratic Governance and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), at 243Google Scholar.

42. Ibid., at 245.

43. See also arts 55 and 56 of the UN Charter which provide, inter alia, that the United Nations shall promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.

44. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, “The Responsibility to Protect” (December 2001), online: Responsibility to Protect <http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf>.

45. Ibid., at [2.14]–[2.15].

46. Weiss, , supra note 15 at 120Google Scholar.

47. Supra note 44 at [2.29]. See also ibid.

48. Weiss, , supra note 15 at 110Google Scholar.

49. Ibid. (emphasis added).

50. Supra note 44 at [4.13] and [4.15]–[4.43].

51. WHEELER, Nicholas J., “Legitimating Humanitarian Intervention: Principles and Procedures” (2001) 2 Melbourne Journal of International Law 550 at 552–554Google Scholar.

52. Bellamy, , supra note 13 at 148–150Google Scholar.

53. Burke, , supra note 37 at 65Google Scholar. See also 2005 World Summit Outcome, 2005 World Summit, UN Doc. A/60/L.1 (2005) at [139].

54. See e.g. Bellamy, , supra note 13 at 162–4 and 166–167Google Scholar, referring, inter alia, to the Mitchell-Gingrich Report: see American Interests and UN Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations, United States Institute of Peace (2005). See also BANNON, Alicia L., “The Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism” (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1157 at 1159Google Scholar, arguing that the World Summit “fails to address whether the United Nations is the only international actor that can exercise the responsibility to protect, or merely the preferred actor”.

55. Arguing using law, those in favour of justifying humanitarian intervention might claim that gross violations of human rights such as genocide and mass murders carried out by a sovereign state amount to breaches of erga omnes obligations in international law, thereby giving rise to a right of the international community to react remedially. However, this approach too appears to face the legalistic obstacle posed in art. 2(4), read with art. 2(7) and Chapter VII, of the UN Charter.

56. Some writers have described this approach as a “turn to ethics”: see KOSKENNIEMI, Martti, “‘The Lady Doth Protest Too Much’: Kosovo, and the Turn to Ethics in International Law” (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. DWORKIN, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

58. Such a paradigm of how international law may be shaped has sometimes been described as “progress through illegality” or “illegal international law reform”. See BUCHANAN, Allen, “Reforming the International Law of Humanitarian Intervention” in J.L. HOLZGREFE and Robert O. KEOHANE, eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), at 134Google Scholar; Burke, , supra note 37 at 32Google Scholar.

59. Rossi, supra note 2 at chapter 6, referring inter alia to the Chorzów Factory (Indemnity) case, the European Commission of the Danube case, the Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain case, the Serbian and Brazilian Loans cases, the Barcelona Traction case, the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Nottebohm case, the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, the Diversion of Water from the River Meuse case, and many more. See also MIYOSHI, Masahiro, Considerations of Equity in the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes (Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993)Google Scholar.

60. See e.g. CHENG, Bin, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at 377–378Google Scholar; AKEHURST, Michael, “Equity and General Principles of Law” (1976) 25 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 801CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is also worth mentioning that although Ian Brownlie had been known for his critical views on the subject of equity in international maritime law cases, his writings have never amounted to a categorical rejection of equity as a legitimate source of international law. Rather, it was only the “utility of equity for difficult problems facing international law” that Ian Brownlie was hostile towards: see JANIS, Mark Weston, “The Ambiguity of Equity in International Law” (1983) 9 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 7 at 22–23Google Scholar.

61. Rossi, , supra note 2 at 153–154Google Scholar.

62. TRAKMAN, Leon, “Ex Aequo et Bono: Demystifying an Ancient Concept” (2008) 8 Chicago Journal of International Law 621Google Scholar.

63. See also Janis, , supra note 60 at 10Google Scholar.

64. See e.g. Cheng, , supra note 60 at 400–408Google Scholar; Burke, , supra note 37 at 147–203Google Scholar.

65. See MAITLAND, Frederick William, CHAYTOR, A.H., and WHITTAKER, W.J., eds., Equity: A Course of Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929)Google Scholar.

66. Virtually every textbook and commentary on equity in the common-law jurisdictions contain a section setting out and discussing “maxims of equity” or “equitable principles”: see e.g. MARTIN, Jill E. and HANBURY, Harold Greville, Hanbury & Martin: Modern Equity, 18th ed. (London: Thomson Reuters, 2009) at 29Google Scholar; HUDSON, Alastair, Equity and Trusts, 6th ed. (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2010) at 25Google Scholar; MEAGHER, R.P., GUMMOW, W.M.C., and LEHANE, J.R.F., Equity: Doctrines and Remedies, 3rd ed. (Sydney: Butterworths, 1992) at 71Google Scholar; PETIT, Philip H., Equity and the Law of Trusts, 12th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; PEARCE, Robert, STEVENS, John, and BARR, Warren, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67. Martin and Hanbury, supra note 66.

68. Pearce et al., supra note 66.

69. BERRYMAN, Jeff, “Equity’s Maxims as a Concept in Canadian Jurisprudence” (2011–13) 43 Ottawa Law Review 165 at 175Google Scholar.

70. Martin, and Hanbury, , supra note 66 at 30Google Scholar.

71. Meagher et al., supra note 66 at 71–72Google Scholar.

72. See e.g. Cobbe v. Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752 (proprietary estoppel); Attorney-General for Hong Kong v. Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (imposing a constructive trust over bribes received by a fiduciary).

73. SNYDER, R. Neil, “Natural Law and Equity” in Rene CASSIN and Ralph A. NEWMAN, eds., Equity in the World’s Legal Systems: A Comparative Study Dedicated to René Cassin, Whose Life Has Been Consecrated to the Illumination of the Fundamental Principles of Justice (Brussels: Bruylant, 1973)Google Scholar. Such a view is consonant with Aristotle’s formulation of equity under which “equity was considered an extension of natural justice”: see Rossi, supra note 2 at 23.

74. M. DRAKOPOULOU, “Law & the Sacred: Equity, Conscience and the Art of Judgment as Ius Aequi et Boni” Law Text Culture (January 2000), online: Law Text Culture <http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=ltc>.

75. PAWLOWSKI, Mark, “Unconscionability as a Unifying Concept in Equity” (2001) 16 Denning Law Journal 79Google Scholar.

76. Rossi, supra note 2 at chapter 2.

77. Ibid., at 24.

78. Ibid., at 25.

79. HADLEY, James, Introduction to Roman Law, in Twelve Academical Lectures (New York: Appleton and Co., 1873) at 15Google Scholar.

80. Rossi, supra note 2 at 30–1. See further YNTEMA, Hessel E., “Equity in the Civil Law and the Common Law” (1966–7) 15 American Journal of Comparative Law 60 at 61Google Scholar.

81. Rossi, supra note 2 at 31.

82. Ibid., at 37–8.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid., at 38.

85. NEWMAN, Ralph A., “Equity in Comparative Law” (1968) 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 807 at 830Google Scholar. See also Rossi, , supra note 2 at 39Google Scholar.

86. Such as the French Civil Code, the Swiss Civil Code, the Italian Civil Code, the Colombian Civil Code, the Ecuadorian Civil Code, the Honduran Civil Code, and the Puerto Rican Civil Code: see Newman, supra note 85 at 831.

87. Such as the Austrian Civil Code, the Peruvian Civil Code, the Chilean Civil Code, the El Salvadorian Civil Code, the Portuguese Civil Code, the Argentine Civil Code, the Guatemalan Civil Code, the Mexican Civil Code, the Spanish Civil Code, the Cuban Civil Code, the Paraguayan Civil Code, the Uruguayan Civil Code, the German Civil Code, the Panamanian Civil Code, the Brazilian Civil Code, and the Venezuelan Civil Code, etc.: see Cheng, , supra note 60 at 400–408Google Scholar.

88. Burke, , supra note 37 at 147–203Google Scholar.

89. Ibid., at 197.

90. Ibid., at 200.

91. Ibid., at 198–9.

92. Ibid., at 158.

93. Ibid.

94. NEWMAN, Ralph A., “The Principle of Equity as a Source of World Law” (1966) 1 Israel Law Review 616 at 617Google Scholar.

95. Ibid.

96. DIAMOND, James A., “Talmudic Jurisprudence, Equity, and the Concept of Lifnim Meshurat Hadin” (1979) 17 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 616 at 616Google Scholar.

97. Burke, , supra note 37 at 183Google Scholar.

98. Ibid., at 185. For further reading, see also MACCORMACK, Geoffrey, “‘Equity’ in Qing Judicial Reasoning as Illustrated from Decisions in Homicide Cases” (2011) 41 Hong Kong Law Journal 813Google Scholar.

99. Burke, Ibid., also notes that the legal system in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, formerly a British colony until 1997 when the British transferred sovereignty over it to the Republic of China, is very much still based on the British common-law system “incorporate[ing] a large corpus of equitable decisions and dicta, virtually identical with those applicable in Britain”.

100. Ibid., at 186.

101. Ibid.

102. For a historical perspective on this area, see PHANG Boon Leong, Andrew, From Foundation to Legacy: The Second Charter of Justice (Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law, 2006)Google Scholar.

103. The Civil Code of the Arab Republic of Egypt, online: University of Minnesota <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/Egypt/Civil%20Law.pdf>.

104. Burke, , supra note 37 at 188Google Scholar.

105. See e.g. CAMERON, Edwin, HONORÉ, Tony, and Johanees DE WAAL, Marius, Honoré’s South African Law of Trusts, 5th ed. (South Africa: Juta, 2002)Google Scholar.

106. Burke, , supra note 37 at 189Google Scholar.

107. [1929] P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 20 (12 July).

108. Ibid., at [80].

109. [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at [30].

110. [1998] I.C.J. Rep. 275 at [57]. For other similar cases, see OVCHAR, Alexander, “Estoppel in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ: A Principle Promoting Stability Threatens to Undermine It” (2009) 21 Bond Law Review 1 at 18–19Google Scholar; WHITE, Justice Margaret, “Equity-A General Principle of Law Recognised by Civilised Nations?” (2004) 4 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 103 at 111–112Google Scholar.

111. [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 392.

112. Ibid., at [50]–[51].

113. [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 7.

114. [1951] I.C.J. 117 (18 January).

115. Ibid., at 139.

116. [1962] I.C.J. 6 (15 June).

117. Ibid., at 23.

118. [1937] P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 70 (28 June).

119. Ibid., at [311].

120. Ibid., at [321].

121. Ibid., at [323]–[326].

122. Ibid., at [322] (citations in original omitted).

123. See e.g. Rossi, , supra note 2 at 163Google Scholar; White, supra note 110 at 113; GRAUER, Christopher, “The Role of Equity in the Jurisprudence of the World Court” (1979) 37 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 101 at 103–106Google Scholar.

124. [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 3.

125. Ibid., at [92].

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid., at [100]–[101].

128. [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 392.

129. See Burke, , supra note 37 at 200Google Scholar.

130. Supra note 128 at 399–400. See further, Burke, , supra note 37 at 220–222Google Scholar.

131. White, , supra note 110 at 116Google Scholar.

132. Burke, supra note 37.

133. Ibid., at 286.

134. Ibid., at 336.

135. Ibid., at 338.

136. Ibid., at 301.

137. Ibid., at 302. At 306, Burke wrote: “Equity exists … to fill the gaps (praeter legem) which exist within the legal structure in order to rectify manifest injustices that would otherwise occur.”

138. Ibid., at 310.

139. Ibid., at 314.

140. Ibid.

141. See accompanying text to supra note 128.

142. Burke, supra note 37 at 319.

143. Ibid., at 317.

144. Ibid., at 320.

145. See accompanying text to supra note 67.

146. Dworkin, supra note 57 at 225:

Law as integrity denies that statements of law are either the backward-looking factual reports of conventionalism or the forward-looking instrumental programs of legal pragmatism. It insists that legal claims are interpretive judgments and therefore combine backward- and forward-looking elements; they interpret contemporary legal practice seen as an unfolding political narrative.

147. Ibid., at 228–9. It should be noted, however, that Dworkin’s “chain novel” theory was expounded specifically in relation to how judges in the judiciary contribute to law as “a group of novelists writ[ing] a novel seriatim; each novelist in the chain interpret[ing] the chapters he has been given in order to write a new chapter, which is then added to what the next novelist receives, and so on”.

148. For an excellent explanation of the “jurisgenetic” theory of law developed by the late Robert Cover, see SNYDER, Franklin G., “Nomos, Narrative, and Adjudication: Toward a Jurisgenetic Theory of Law” (1999) 40 William & Mary Law Review 1623Google Scholar.

149. See e.g. FINNEMORE, Martha and SIKKINK, Kathryn, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change” (1998) 52 International Organization 887CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150. See e.g. Grauer, , supra note 123 at 102Google Scholar; Trakman, , supra note 62 at 626Google Scholar; Janis, , supra note 60 at 12Google Scholar.

151. See e.g. Grauer, , supra note 123 at 102Google Scholar; Trakman, , supra note 62 at 626Google Scholar; Janis, , supra note 60 at 12Google Scholar; see also Burke, , supra note 37 at 309Google Scholar.

152. See accompanying text to supra notes 33–35.

153. In 1950, UN General Assembly Resolution A-RES-377(V), otherwise known as the “Uniting for Peace Resolution”, was adopted, which stated that:

[I]f the Security Council because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

However, serious problems with this resolution have been discussed in MURPHY, Sean D., Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996) at 300Google Scholar, one of which is that the reference to “international peace and security” in the resolution suggests that the situation contemplated by the UN General Assembly was effectively “a situation of international armed conflict” (emphasis added). This is in contradistinction to the humanitarian crisis paradigm that the international community is more frequently confronted with today, such as where there is no armed conflict of an international character involved in the humanitarian crisis at all (e.g. Syria).

154. Annan, supra note 1.

155. For the purposes of this paper, the distinction between a non liquet and a situation having too many competing norms is not of great significance. In fact, the two concepts may be compatible, particularly considering the nature of international law, because a non liquet often may be seen as a predicate to the rise of competing norms advocated by different norm entrepreneurs on the subject in question.

156. This, of course, is independent of the question of whether the individual states in the international community do in fact intervene, since the decision whether to carry out intervention may be affected by a variety of non-legal considerations in every state.

157. See accompanying text to supra note 134.

158. To the extent that Burke’s writing omits to provide any illumination in this regard, the equitable framework as argued by Burke is incomplete.

159. Supra note 128.

160. This is a well-established equitable principle that exemplifies equity’s preference for substance over form. See e.g. the English case of Walsh v. Lonsdale [1882] 21 Ch. D. 9.

161. For an excellent discussion on voluntarism in international law, see CASSESE, Antonio and WEILER, J.H.H., Change and Stability in International Law-Making (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at chapter 2.

162. See e.g. Augusto CANÇADO TRINDADE, Antônio, “International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (I): General Course on Public International Law”, in vol. 316, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) at 45Google Scholar; DWORKIN, Ronald, “A New Philosophy for International Law” (2013) 41 Philosophy & Public Affairs 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163. See accompanying text to supra note 151.

164. Art. 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute.

165. See accompanying text to supra notes 147–156.

166. For a brief account on NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, see e.g. THOMASHAUSEN, Sophie, Humanitarian Intervention in an Evolving World Order: The Cases of Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo and East Timor (Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa, 2002) at 88–116Google Scholar.

167. See “FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 Speech on Syria” The Washington Post (10 September 2013), online: The Washington Post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html>.

168. See supra note 44.

169. Weiss, supra note 15 at 120.

170. Supra note 53.

171. Burke, , supra note 37 at 65Google Scholar. But some writers still doubt the correctness of such an interpretation. See e.g. Bellamy, supra note 13 at 162–4 and 166–7, referring, inter alia, to the Mitchell-Gingrich Report: see American Interests and UN Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations, United States Institute of Peace (2005). See also Bannon, supra note 54 at 1159, arguing that the World Summit “fails to address whether the United Nations is the only international actor that can exercise the responsibility to protect, or merely the preferred actor”.

172. Address at Georgetown University on 23 February 1999; U.N. Doc. SG/SM/6901, P.K.O. 80.

173. 2005 World Summit, supra note 53 at [139].

174. Ibid.

175. See Bannon, supra note 54.

176. Dworkin, , supra note 162 at 24–25Google Scholar.

177. PAYANDEH, Mehrdad, “The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart” (2011) 21 European Journal of International Law 967 at 971Google Scholar:

Th[e] voluntarist approach to international law found its expression in the famous Lotus decision of the Permanent Court of Justice in which the court held that “[i]nternational law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law.

178. See generally MAY, Larry, Limiting Leviathan: Hobbes on Law and International Affairs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

179. Quotation reproduced in ibid., at 193 (emphasis added).

180. Ibid., at 189.

181. Dworkin, , supra note 176 at 17–20Google Scholar (emphasis added).

182. See e.g. KENNEDY, Duncan, “Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenology” (1986) 36 Journal of Legal Education 518Google Scholar.

183. See e.g. KOH, Harold, “Transnational Legal Process” (1996) 75 Nebraska Law Review 181Google Scholar; RILES, Annelise, The Network Inside Out (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; KINGSBURY, Benedict, KRISCH, Nico, and W. WIENER, Jonathan, “The Emergence of Global Administrative Law” (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 15Google Scholar; de BÚRCA, Gráinne, KEOHANE, Robert O., and SABEL, Charles F., “Global Experimentalist Governance” (2014) 44 British Journal of Political Science 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

184. See “Russia’s Humanitarian Actions vs Western Military Interventionism: Tskhinval is not Tripoli, Crimea is not Kosovo” Sputniknews (21 March 2014), online: Sputniknews <http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2014_03_21/Russias-humanitarian-actions-vs-Western-military-interventionism-Tskhinval-is-not-Tripoli-Crimea-is-not-Kosovo-1878/>.

185. Some writers have likened “excuse” to the domestic criminal-law doctrine of mitigation: see Franck, , supra note 34 at 179Google Scholar; Burke, , supra note 37 at 39Google Scholar.

186. Drakopoulou, supra note 74.

187. See also Rossi, supra note 2; Cheng, supra note 60 at 400; Burke, supra note 37 at chapter 3.

188. S/RES/1973 (2011). UN Security Council Resolution 1973 S/RES/1973 (2011) was preceded by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 S/RES/1970 (2011), where the UN Security Council deplored “the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators, expressing deep concern at the deaths of civilians, and rejecting unequivocally the incitement to hostility and violence against the civilian population made from the highest level of the Libyan government”.

189. Modeme, supra note 18 at 7–9. It should, however, be pointed out that this reasoning is in contrast with the views expressed by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić aka “Dule”, Case No. I.T. 94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (I.C.T.Y.) (2 October 1995) at [30].

190. Modeme, , supra note 18 at 7–8Google Scholar.