Tension and conflict are widespread across the world and can take different forms. However, an area of tension is different from a conflict zone.
|
Areas of Tension
|
Conflict Zones
|
|
Few or no armed clashes While riots, violent protests or isolated acts of terrorism may occur, they are infrequent. |
Large-scale armed clashes No longer isolated incidents: armed groups are organized and confrontations are extremely intense |
| Little or no victims | Numerous victims |
|
*An area of tension can become a conflict zone* Cause: different people with different interests. For example: a territory claimed by religious or ethnic groups, or a territory that has high-coveted natural resources. |
|
To assess the intensity of an armed conflict, several factors are considered: the length of the fighting, its severity, the number of combatants involved, the types of weapons used, the number of casualties, and the extent of the damage caused by the confrontations, among other criteria.
Internal conflict or other violence: what difference does it make to the victims?
Tensions or conflicts may arise within a single country or may involve two or more countries:
-
An armed conflict that takes place within a single country is called a “non-international armed conflict” OR an “internal armed conflict.”
-
An armed conflict that takes place between two or more countries is called an “international armed conflict.”
When an armed conflict results in a large number of casualties in one or more countries, it captures the attention of the international community. One main concern is whether it is even possible to intervene. From an outsider’s point of view, this question may seem pointless. Human rights are being violated, thousands of people are being killed... Let’s take action! But it is not that simple.
A key feature of a country is its sovereignty. “Sovereign” means that a country does not have to follow any authority other than its own. It governs what happens within its borders, and nobody else. The sovereignty of countries includes the principle of non-interference by others.
-
A state is a territorial and political community with a government that has recognized borders within which the people live.
-
Interference is the involvement of a country or international organization in the political, economic, social, cultural, religious or humanitarian affairs of another country without its permission. Interference goes against state sovereignty.
-
Sovereignty is the absolute power of a country to govern itself by making its own laws and enforcing them within its territory. A sovereign nation is independent, meaning that it cannot be controlled by any other nation or institution.
The principle of non-interference is universal. It is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which establishes the fundamental principles of international relations.
Article 2.4 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force [...]”
Article 2.7 states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state [...]”
Therefore it can be complicated to intervene in areas of tension or conflict because of state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference. The organization or country getting involved must be able to justify its intervention.
Military or humanitarian intervention is the last resort in conflicts according to the UN. However, there are exceptional situations that justify the decision not to follow the principle of non-interference. Intervention may be acceptable if it is done for the following reasons.
First and foremost, if a country asks another country to get involved in its affairs, intervention is acceptable.
Intervention is also acceptable if:
-
a country’s situation threatens world peace or international security;
-
a humanitarian crisis has arisen due to a natural disaster or armed conflict and there are massive human rights violations;
-
a country’s population is at risk of crimes against humanity or genocide.
-
A crime against humanity is a deliberate violation of the basic rights of an individual or a group of individuals for political, philosophical, racial or religious reasons. Acts such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and torture are crimes against humanity.
-
A genocide is the intentional and organized extermination of an ethnic, religious or social group. It is a crime against humanity under international law.
When situations like this arise, it becomes acceptable for the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other countries to intervene. International humanitarian law (IHL) and the protection of human rights are often invoked. However, if the reason for action is a threat to world peace, the UN Security Council is the only authority that can decide if intervention is justified. Regardless, it is always preferable to have the Security Council’s support to get involved in another country’s affairs, unless the country itself asked for help.
Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter with respect to the international community becoming involved in a conflict.
Article 41: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
Article 42: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
The Rwandan genocide unfolded in Rwanda in 1994. According to the UN, at least 800 000 men, women and children were killed, with most victims being members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group. UN peacekeepers were sent to Rwanda in 1993 to help the Tutsis and Hutus resolve their tensions.
Peacekeepers are not allowed to use their weapons. They can only use them to defend themselves if their lives are threatened. Canadian General Roméo Dallaire was the commander of this UN mission. When fighting broke out, he repeatedly asked for a better response from the peacekeepers, especially to defend civilians. But the UN refused. Two thousand peacekeepers were returned home. On the first day of the massacre, 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed. The remaining 270 soldiers were mainly tasked with evacuating foreigners rather than helping the local population. They watched helplessly as one of the greatest genocides in history took place. The peacekeeper commander requested permission to use their weapons for any purpose other than self-defence, but the UN did not grant permission.
The same situation happened during the Bosnian genocide between 1992 and 1995, which left 100 000 people dead. It was very difficult for the soldiers on the ground. The UN has been widely criticized for its failure to prevent these two genocides. The international community was aware that these massacres were happening but the peacekeepers had to watch helplessly because their hands were tied and no further action could be taken.
The Gulf War (1990-1991) is an example of a legal attack on Iraq. Indeed, the UN authorized intervention when the Iraqi government invaded Kuwait. The UN had given Iraq a clear warning that if it did not withdraw its troops from Kuwait, it would authorize UN member states to use all necessary means to force Iraq to comply. The Iraqi government refused to obey this order, so the UN Security Council authorized 28 of its member states to attack, led by the United States. Air and naval bombing and ground assaults were carried out against Iraq in a mission called Operation Desert Storm. The mission achieved its goals, and Iraq withdrew from Kuwait.
Some people argue that when civilians are in danger, we not only have the right to step in, but have a duty to do so. This is a form of humanitarian assistance that allows for a degree of humanitarian interference. It includes sending help to populations in a humanitarian crisis caused by events like a natural disaster, armed conflict, genocide or war crimes.
In 2001, the report from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced a new idea: the responsibility to protect. This idea was later discussed at the UN World Summit in 2005. At this summit, the heads of state agreed that it is their responsibility to protect civilians facing armed conflicts. This means that:
-
each country is responsible for its people;
-
the international community has a duty to help countries protect their civilians;
-
the international community is responsible for protecting people when a country fails to do so.
State sovereignty means that countries not only have rights, but also responsibilities. If a country does not fulfill these responsibilities, the international community should step in. However, in reality, few governments are willing to take political, financial or human risks to help people in another country. When a country decides to send humanitarian aid to another, it is often driven by other motives, like showing its power, having an excuse to get involved in the country's affairs or gaining international visibility.