چکیده:
Humanitarian intervention in the classical sense is defined as the unilateral intervention of one or more states in the internal affairs of another state, through the use of force and for humanitarian goals and purposes. Regarding humanitarian intervention, many questions arise: Is humanitarian intervention fundamentally permissible under international law regulations or not? How is the legal validity of such an intervention proven? Is the basis for permissibility the United Nations Charter or international custom and the practice of states? What is the difference between intervention, self-help, and self-defense? What are the conditions for permissibility? What is meant by gross violation of human rights? And similar questions; however, there is a fundamental question that serves as the axis of this article: Is humanitarian intervention ethically justified? On which ethical theory can humanitarian intervention be justified? It is certain that states have an ethical responsibility regarding the violation of fundamental human rights. Undoubtedly, whenever human rights are systematically, grossly, and extensively violated in a way that affects the conscience of humanity, the silence of the international community is not ethically or humanely justifiable. In this article, while examining the ethical foundations of an obligation, the limits and scope of the permissibility of intervention and the ethical conditions of its legitimacy are discussed.
خلاصه ماشینی:
298) Frank and Rodley, two American jurists, while reviewing United Nations documents and resolutions and emphasizing that no exception is seen in these documents that would authorize the use of military force even to protect human rights, state: neither codified international law regulations allow such a matter, nor does the practice of states; the United Nations Charter and United Nations resolutions never prescribe the military intervention of one country or a group of countries in another country, even for humanitarian purposes, and on the other hand, the use of military force for the purpose of enforcing human rights or preventing inhumane acts has not been confirmed in the history of state practice; rather, on the contrary, the scale of states' refrain from it is clearly heavier.
Based on this moral theory, the intervention of one state in the affairs of another state cannot be justified with humanitarian intentions and goals; because according to this theory, fundamental rights of individuals do not have a position as a guaranteed basis.
93) The American John Rawls also justifies intervention in the internal affairs of countries for the purpose of promoting human rights and preventing their violation based on a specific premise that is morally questionable.
Therefore, even if the theory of just war was considered acceptable in the past, and although states in principle have a moral responsibility to fight against human tragedies and the violation of human rights, it is not possible to adhere to it today; rather, in the current situation, ethics dictates something else, which is the impermissibility of intervention.
(
, 
, 
)
