| Abstract: | This article explores the multiple roles played by civil society actors in relation to policy debates relating to whether to advocate or oppose humanitarian intervention under a variety of specific circumstances or in general. There is no consistent civil society viewpoint, but rather a range of disagreements relating to whether there exists a genuine imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe, whether the political will exists to intervene in a manner that protects a threatened population, and whether a reliance on force for humanitarian ends should ever be supported in the absence of a mandate from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Most civil society voices prefer to assess each case on its own rather than to be for or against humanitarian intervention as a general proposition. A consensus would look favourably upon humanitarian intervention endorsed by the UNSC. The problems arise where such an endorsement is not obtainable. The NATO War of 1999 to safeguard the endangered Albanian population of Kosovo illustrates the positive case for humanitarian intervention as there appeared to be an imminent threat and there existed a sufficient political will to make it seem likely that an intervention could attain its goals. The absence of support from the UNSC in this instance was offset by the participation by the UN after the fact in the work of economic and political reconstruction, although the precedent set by this use of non-defensive force has kept the Kosovo undertaking controversial. In contrast to Kosovo, civil society actors throughout the world generally rejected the claimed humanitarian justifications for the Iraq War. At this time civil society is split on the question as to whether ever to encourage humanitarian intervention undertaken absent a green light in advance from the UN. |
