The difficulties nations face when political leaders deliberately block humanitarian aid to their people are discussed in a Comment in this week's edition of The Lancet, written by Professor Lawrence O Gostin, John D Kraemer and Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Referring to Burma's Cyclone Nargis, and the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, the authors say that when blocking aid, political leaders "violate international human rights and potentially commit a crime against humanity…while intervention is best pursuant to authorisation from the UN Security Council, without such authorisation, regional organisations or individual nations should prioritise the survival of large populations over the sovereignty claims of despotic leaders…If leaders act, or fail to act, in ways that will lead to widespread death — and then block those who seek to prevent it — they commit a crime against humanity and intervention is appropriate." They add: "When official conduct constitutes a crime against humanity, either by refusing aid to those in need (as in Burma) or actively creating a humanitarian emergency (Zimbabwe), ameliorating the emergency may require foreign intervention without host-country consent."
The UN Charter says that action sanctioned by the UN Security Council to tackle crimes against humanity would be legal; however, the authors say the Council is often paralysed by the five permanent members' ability to veto initiatives, necessitating examination of the legality of unilateral or coalition interventions. And such action, should it take place, says the Charter, must be proportionate — no more than necessary to achieve humanitarian ends — and it must not interfere unnecessarily with a country's self-determination. The interveners must disengage upon securing fundamental rights and report their actions to the Security Council.
The authors conclude: "Nations should be justifiably cautious about using or threatening intervention to stop crimes against humanity. Policy makers must carefully consider risks to relief workers, civilians, and troops, as well as the danger of complicating future health-promotion activities. Forced intervention is a complex policy question, but blanket rejection may condemn innocent civilians and prevent deterrence of crimes against humanity. Where leaders engage in intentional acts of cruelty toward their populations, wealthy nations should be prepared to intervene beyond their borders to safeguard health and human rights."
Professor Lawrence O Gostin, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA (temporarily in UK) T) +44 (0) 1768 774153 E) gostin@law.georgetown.edu
Full Comment: http://press.thelancet.com/humanitariancommentfinal.pdf
Journal
The Lancet