Though Article 2(4) was intended as a blanket prohibition against the international use of force, the Charter allows for two exceptions: Article 51 which permits states to use force for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense in the event a member of the UN is subjected to "armed attack" and Articles 39 and 41 (Chapter VII) which taken together authorizes the UN to use "air, sea, or land forces" in the event of "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression" so as "to maintain or restore international peace and security." While conceived to provide the UN with the legal foundation to undertake classic collective security missions in response to the threat of naked aggression by one state against another, Chapter VII of the Charter has only once been invoked for this purpose (in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait).10 Rather, its primary function since the early 1990s has been to address cases of internal disorder that have caused or threaten to cause a major humanitarian disaster.
This development began initially with the United Nations determining that populations in danger of starvation, massacre, and other forms of large scale suffering had the right to receive assistance.11 This was followed by more direct efforts to deliver essential supplies and services and later by the practice of declaring "safe haven" for non-combatants. These interventions were put on a stronger legal foundation through the use of Chapter VII of the Charter by essentially declaring various civil conflicts a "threat to international peace and security." The most notable cases were, Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992), Croatia (1993), Liberia (1993), Haiti (1993), Rwanda (1994), Zaire (1996), Albania (1997).12 Besides the growing use of Chapter VII, international human rights law as well as international humanitarian law have also expanded in recent years to challenge the primacy of states rights.13
The foundation of contemporary human rights law is generally considered to be the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.14 Upon this other international legal commitments have been undertaken that include, most notably, the Genocide Convention (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) and the Convention Against Torture (1984).15 The Universal Declaration has also inspired regionally focussed agreements especially in Europe. International humanitarian law by contrast has been aimed at reducing unnecessary suffering and, in particular, the threat to the life and welfare of civilians in times of war regardless of whether it is international or internal in nature. The four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949 (with two additional protocols in 1977) that govern the treatment of the wounded, prisoners of war, and civilians under such circumstances is generally considered the basic charter of humanitarian law. It has provided the legal springboard, moreover, for the prosecution of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as well as the impetus for the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court.16
Despite these developments the right of states to intervene to uphold these agreements has remained on shaky ground. Most if not all legal scholars would reject such a right.17 In the case of human rights and humanitarian law, the various treaties are virtually silent on the obligations of the international community to enforce them. The use of force is certainly never mentioned as a legitimate recourse of action for such purposes.18 Probably the best that can be said is that state practice as manifested through the actions of the United Nations in response to various humanitarian crises during the 1990s suggests that a new norm of customary international law, if not a clear legal right, is being established to legitimize intervention for the protection of individuals against "massive and systemic suffering."19
