CYIL 2015

223

YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, CAN YOU? …

YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, CAN YOU?

ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE USE OF

FORCE IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AND REGIME CHANGE

Ralph Janik

Abstract:

In the post-Cold War world, military operations have often been justified

by varying degrees of human rights considerations, a preventive approach towards

self-defence, and the morality of overthrowing oppressive regimes. During the

accompanying revision of the all too bothersome principle of sovereignty, the focus has

shifted away from international peace and security in the original sense,

i.e.

understood

as applying in inter-state relations, towards individuals as the ultimate beneficiaries of

the international order. The practical implementation of this doctrinal approach has

often led to criticism and sat uneasy with governments suspicious that it could be used

against them; more often than not, alleged human rights considerations are deemed

as merely providing a convenient shield for geostrategic goals. Many states fear that

noble intentions may in reality be abused to impose forcible regime change. Upon closer

inspection these fears are well-founded since the use of force in the name of human

rights and regime change proceed from the same basic assumption, namely sovereignty

as being conditional upon a certain conduct of states and their governments towards

their citizens. Thus, it is only a small step from intervening on behalf of human rights to

overthrowing the government responsible for mass atrocities. The

ius post bellum

aspect

often even calls for a reorganization of the internal legal system or at least an exchange

of leaders. Going even further, some just war theorists argue that no oppressive regime

may rely on sovereignty as a shield from forceful interference because of its lack of

legitimacy and regardless of the actual perpetration of massive human rights violations.

Given the proximity between the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and just war theory,

such assumptions need to be taken seriously. After all, the international order seems to

be at a crossroads between traditional law and the notion of pluralism and ambitions

to establish a worldwide concert of democracies – with the Responsibility to Protect

doctrine and just war theory serving as the legal and doctrinal tool in justifying action on

behalf of the latter. The ultimate question that still warrants an answer from a doctrinal

viewpoint, especially when considering the various historic examples in this regard, is

whether there can be an actual implementation of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine

in the sense of using force without imposing regime change.

Resumé:

V období po skončení studené války byly vojenské operace často ospra-

vedlněné různým stupněm ohledů na lidská práva, preventivním přístupem k sebe-

obraně, a morálním zdůvodněním svržení despotických režimů. Během probíha-