The fundamental doctrine of international law is the sovereignty of the state. Unlike domestic law, international law has no enforcement mechanism. Inter-state conflicts can be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice only if both parties agree to appear in court and if they accept the jurisdiction of the Court. The sovereignty of the state doctrine is also recognised in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which forbids the UN from intervening in the domestic affairs of any state

The question arises: Should a state engaged in ethnic cleansing of its people, for example, be allowed to commit atrocities against its people while being protected by the principle of non-intervention? This is what happened in Rwanda where, in 1994, an estimated half a million to one million people of the Tutsi minority were slaughtered by the ruling members of the Hutu majority. Neither the US, nor the UN intervened to stop the slaughter even when it became known that a genocide was being perpetrated against the Tutsi minority. The 1999 UN Report on Rwanda concluded that “The failure by The United Nations to prevent, and, subsequently, to stop the genocide in Rwanda, was a failure by the UN system as a whole.”

Former president Bill Clinton’s administration knew that a genocide was taking place in Rwanda, but chose not to intervene. Clinton subsequently apologised to the Rwandan people. “We did not act quickly enough after the killing began,” he said Partly as a result of this tragic failure, civil society and voices from governmental organisations urged the great powers and the UN to never allow another Rwanda to happen again. The challenge consisted in developing the capacity to respond in a timely fashion to humanitarian crises without being hampered by the principle of non-intervention.

The present system of international relations recognises the reality of the great powers’ pursuit of self interest even when it is not in conformity with the principles of international law. President Barak Obama’s speech at the United Nations last September, for all its rhetorical elegance, could not hide this imperial reality. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proposed a new perspective on humanitarian intervention. It proposed that the international community replace the concept of “right of humanitarian intervention” by the new conception of responsibility to protect (R2P). It argued that the international community has the responsibility to protect civilians threatened by their own states.

Last resort

The 2005 United Nations World Summit Outcome Document enshrined R2P as the responsibility of the international community to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The conditions to justify a military intervention to protect threatened population are fairly strict. They include genocide, ethnic cleansing and the inability of the state to protect its population. The primary purpose of the intervention must be to halt or avert human suffering. Further, the military intervention must be the last resort. The responsibility to protect clearly applies to the Syrian conflict. Since the conflict began more than two years ago, more than 100,000 people have been killed, more than a million have become refugees, and there are millions of internally displaced persons. The children have particularly suffered: separation of families, psychological distress of the war, life as a refugee with no education and illegal child labour — all compounded by the horrors of war and the inability of the regime to protect its people.

A few weeks ago, the Obama administration publicly contemplated a limited strike against Syrian targets as a punishment to the regime for allegedly using chemical weapons against its people. But punishing the regime does not alleviate the suffering of its people. On the other hand, a full military intervention may help bring to power Islamic extremists who do not hide their intention of establishing a regime even less committed to democratic governance than the present one.

The responsibility to protect should have been invoked early on when it became clear that the Syrian regime was callously killing demonstrators demanding freedom and democracy. A political settlement is now the best option for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Last week the UN announced that the Syrian government and the opposition will meet in Geneva on January 22. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the government and opposition to stop the violence to permit internally displaced people to return to their homes.

The recent military gains of the regime will make it difficult for the western governments to insist on the departure of The Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. On the other hand the stronger position of the Syrian regime presents an opportunity for Al Assad to negotiate favourable conditions for his departure. He should seize that opportunity for the sake of his people.

Adel Safty is distinguished visiting professor and special adviser to the rector at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.