> This is in fact the main problem with the
> humanitarian intervention model. By making
> protection of minority human rights its
> first principle -- and by not making UN
> approval necessary to it -- it basically
> gives free license to aggressive war,
> precisely the thing that the whole UN based
> structure of international law was set up
> to stop in the first place.
>
> It's not that the guys who set the UN
> didn't care about protecting minority rights.
> That was pretty high on their mind. But
> stopping aggressive war was for them the
> first principle of international law. And
> using the excuse of protecting minority
> rights to launch aggressive invasions was
> not only a favorite of Hitler's, and of
> most imperialist actions during the golden
> age of imperialism, but it's been the
> favorite excuse throughout history. So it
> was clear to them that if being against
> aggressive war was their first principle,
> the other one would have to be sacrificed
> to it.
>
> It's unfortunately not clear to most
> humanitarian interventionists that if they
> reverse the order, and make protection of
> minority rights their first principle, they
> need to create a new structure of
> international law, and a new UN substitute
> to go with it -- one that could be depended
> on to authorize it, and without whose
> authorization it wouldn't be done. Because
> otherwise, if this principle is elevated
> above the UN, it will consume the entire
> existing structure of international law in
> a sandwhirl of legitimated aggressive wars.
> Just like the founders foresaw.
>
> And it's not mere impatience and contempt
> (although that plays a role) that has led
> humanitarian interventionists to end-run
> the UN. It's because it so often stands in
> its way, and rightly so in its own terms,
> precisely because it's based on these old
> principles (and because of its constitutive
> structure, where the executive is the
> committee of the victors of WWII (plus China
> as the not-Japan substitute)). It's not an
> accident that the UN didn't authorize the
> invasion of Kosovo. It didn't do it because
> Russia vetoed it. And if they followed the
> rules, Russia would have continued to veto
> it until the end of time, and would have
> been right until the end of time based on
> these old principles.
>
> The interventionists had a choice, the old
> principles or the new. They chose the new.
> Russia is complying with them.
Well said, Michael.
Shane