The False Promise of 'Humanitarian' Intervention

The Libyan war is a cautionary tale that there is nothing humanitarian about “humanitarian” interventions.

Kevin Jon Heller makes a strong case against “humanitarian” intervention:

The legal issue, however, is distinct from the normative one. Even if unilateral humanitarian intervention is unlawful and criminal, it could still be a good idea for states to unilaterally use force to protect civilians. Conversely, even if unilateral humanitarian intervention is lawful, it could still be a bad idea for states to unilaterally use force to protect civilians. The normative question depends not on law but on how we answer two empirical questions. First, are states likely to unilaterally use force for genuinely humanitarian purposes? And second, are genuinely humanitarian unilateral interventions likely to effectively prevent mass atrocity?

My answer to both questions is the same: Definitely not.

The U.S. has used force several times since the end of the Cold War to pursue ostensibly humanitarian goals, and advocates for military intervention have often dressed up their appeals in humanitarian rhetoric no matter what their real goals may have been. One would think that the record speaks for itself, but despite the failures of past interventions on their own terms there is still a significant constituency in Washington that believes that “humanitarian” intervention can be successful and should be tried again in the future. That is why Heller’s argument is so valuable: he shows how rare it is for states to use force for genuinely humanitarian reasons and how ineffective these interventions are even when they are being done for those reasons.