(with
the request for publication)
Unser
Politikblog | 08.09.2018
Statement
by a former constitutional plaintiff
by:
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Again
an escalation in Syria to nuclear war is threatening because of a
false flag chemical weapon attack, which is presumably in
preparation. The ideology behind that would already have been
outlawed, if we had a completely functioning rule of the law.
The
ideology behind the „humanitarian intervention“
The
ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ originates from the
study „Self-Determination
in the New World Order“ by the think tank „Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace“ of the year 1992.
The
study „Self-Determination in the New World Order“ aims at more
interventions incl. military interventions by the USA and its allies,
disattracting from the legal limits, which are set by the sovereignty
of the states (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter), by the prohibition of
aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter), by the prohibition of
interference into inner affairs (art. 2 par. 7 UN Charter), and by
art. 29 no. 3 UDHR, which prohibits, in order to serve peace, the
instrumentalization of the universal huamn rights against the UN
Charter. For this purpose, the think tank refers to the right of
the peoples to self-determination (art. 1 Uno Social Pact, art. 1 UN
Civil Pact, art. 1 no. 2 UN Charter) and ignores the UN General
Assemlby resolution 2625
of the 24.10.1970 on principles under international law regarding
friendly relations and cooperation between the states,
which has already regulated the area of tension between the right of
the peoples to self-determination and the sovereignty of the states.
For the purpose of its concept, the study the term „people“ to
any group, which objectively or (according to the opinion of its
members) subjectively is different from others regarding ethnic,
linguistic, religious, or cultural ties (p.47+48). It differentiates
self-determination movements (p. 49-52) between anti-colonial,
sub-state (strife for autonomy or separatism), trans-state
(separatism affecting the territories of several states),
self-determination of dispersed peoples, Indigenous
self-determination, and representative self-determination (for more
representative democracy).
The
study recommends to the USA as possible ways of action (p. 73), a)
to remain neutral, b) to support the government of the other state
against the strifes for self-determination, c) to convince the
government of the other state to approach the self-determination
movement, d) to grant to the self-determination movement a certain
amount of recognition, e) to support territorial autonomy, or f) to
support secession combined with conditions imposed by the USA for the
recognition of the new state and of its government.
The
study recommends, that the USA even should not shy away from such
self-determination movements, which apply violence against a
suppressive government (p. 79), and that it was not necessary to
demand any proof, that the government has already resorted to
violence.
It
also says, that, for the purpose of prevention of civil wars, it
could be compelling to recognize secession movements as governments
and to lobby internationally for the recognition of their secession
(p. 80).
Regarding
the support to states coming into existence, the study recommends to
differentiate, if one recognizes the new state and its governments,
or, in a first step, only one of the both (p. 83). It recommends as
criteria for the recognition of a new state (p. 84-93) the UN
admissibility criteria, if the leaders of the new state promise
adherence to the international law, respect for the inviolability of
state borders, relinquishment of use of force contrary to
international law, peaceful settlement of arguments, constitutional
democracy, right to a differing political opinion, protection for the
rights of individuals and of minorities, limits to police
arbitrariness, market-oriented economy, and subjugation under an
enforcement mechanism. The study imaginates the latter in the way,
that the new state authorizes the UN Security Council or a regional
organization to militarily intervene into the new state, if it does
not comply with the above-mentioned recognition critieria recommended
by that think tank, and to perhaps be entitled to occupy the new
state up to 5 years in order to enforce the criteria (p. 91).
It
regards as methods of intervention (p. 96) surveillance, diplomatical
pressure, refusal of international legitimacy (according to p.
101+102 incl. exclusion or suspension of the membership of the
respective country in international organizations, as well as refusal
of recognition of the government and instead recognition of a rival
government), conditionality in the development aid, economic
sanctions, and military interventions.
The
study regards as reasons for military interventions (p. 105-111) the
prevention of an armed conflict (e. g. for the protection of
minorities or for the deterrence against external attacks against a
new state), violent enforcement of humanitarian relief to civil
populations under siege (according to the to the assessment at p. 107
of the study the in future possibly most common purpose of collective
military interventions into internal conflicts of any kind !),
defence of a new state, support to the self-determination movement,
enforcement of the compliance with the criteria for the recognition
of the new state (on the basis of the consent demanded before the
recognition, p. 110), and the defence of the existing government.
