Sovereignty and humanitarian intervention  

"We confront a real dilemma. Few would disagree that both the defence of humanity and the defence of sovereignty are principles that must be supported. Alas, that does not tell us which principle should prevail when they are in conflict."

From the Millennium Report

In September 1999, the Secretary-General invited Member States to take a fresh look at what means, including intervention, the United Nations uses to respond to political, human rights and humanitarian crises. "From Sierra Leone to the Sudan", the Secretary-General said, "to Angola to the Balkans to Cambodia and to Afghanistan, there are a great number of peoples who need more than just words of sympathy from the international community. They need a real and sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence …."

The Secretary-General suggested that the concept of intervention should be defined broadly. It should include a range of actions from those that are mostly symbolic to those designed to force the desired result. It should also go hand in hand with the commitment to apply the criteria for intervention fairly and consistently, irrespective of region or nation.

In some crises, no action is taken because States do not want any outside interference, or because it is not in their national interest to act. The Secretary-General suggested that, in a new century, a new concept of national interest might "induce States to find far greater unity in the pursuit of such basic Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law." We are all human, and in the defence of common humanity, United Nations Member States should be able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter.

"All States support conflict prevention in principle, but in practice such support is often qualified by restrictions, sometimes for financial reasons, sometimes for reasons related to preserving sovereignty."

The unresolved debate on intervention is directly related to the unresolved question of how and when to act to prevent armed conflict. All States support conflict prevention in principle, but in practice such support is often qualified by restrictions, sometimes for financial reasons, sometimes for reasons related to preserving sovereignty. Some States express support for a proactive, prevention-oriented Security Council. They note that resistance to intervention might itself result in reduced sovereignty in the event armed conflict breaks out. Other States emphasize that any action by the Council to institute a "culture of prevention" must be examined carefully. In their view, intervention must not infringe on the territorial integrity of States. In the case of internal conflict, States may not wish to "internationalize" the situation or to accept that there are other solutions to the conflict in addition to the military option.