Concept note

1. DEFINITION
Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a “form of coercive action, undertaken by one or more states, involving the use of armed forces in another state without the consent of its authorities and with the purpose of stopping and preventing widespread suffering or death among its inhabitants” (Adam Roberts).

The emergence of the doctrine can be seen as one of the defining feature of a new global human rights regime, alongside the establishment of the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals, a regime in which state sovereignty is not absolute anymore.

Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC (Red Cross and Red Crescent) explains this emergence as a response to the rising number of internal conflicts and of new actors autonomous of the state, rise caused by the mounting tensions between the “processes of globalization and the assertion of identity”. These conflicts, he asserts, have changed the contours of humanitarian action in an environment ever more complex.

2. FORMS OF INTERVENTION
The Armed interventions can take many forms ranging from peace enforcement (e.g. cantonment and demobilisation of fighters, destruction of weapons, setting up of new armed forces..) coercive protection of civilians (e.g. humanitarian corridors, no fly zones, safe heavens, protection of aid convoys..) to war fighting (e.g. use of force against conflicting parties or spoilers..) (See TG Weiss). It can even take the form of military bombing, as is presently the case in Libya. More controversially it can be unilateral (e.g. Kosovo by NATO) or with the explicit authorisation of the Security Council (Libya).
In all cases it boils down to the use of armed forces in a country without the consent of its authorities in order to stop or prevent violations of human rights occurring on a massive scale.

3.PAST INTERVENTIONS
The phenomenon of humanitarian interventions has grown in recent years and especially after the end of the cold war when the preoccupation was rather the maintenance of blocks and alliances. The literature generally identifies 4 phases:
1-During the cold war with the interventions of India in East Pakistan (today Bangladesh) in 1970, of Vietnam in Cambodia (1979) and of Tanzania in Uganda in 1978. These interventions led to the collapse of existing regimes and brought an end to extreme situations of humanitarian disasters. Some have argued however that even if the outcomes of these interventions led to radical improvements in the human right contexts the prime motivation was political and strategic in other words a defence of the national interest.
2-The 1990s saw an increase in the number of interventions as the end of the cold war gave way to numerous internal conflicts while the promises of a new international order made the suffering of the people caught in them difficult to ignore. These would include among others the no-fly zone in Northern Iraq (USA –UK) in 1992 the operation Restore Hope in Somalia (USA-UN) in 1993 the intervention by NATO in Kosovo in 1994, by the USA/UN in Haiti in 1994, the delayed operation by the French to stop the genocide in Rwanda in July 1994.These operations characteristically involved the imprimatur of the Security Council or at least an attempt to secure it.
3-Post 9/11 humanitarian concerns have been overtaken by those raised by the war on terror and at times humanitarianism has been instrumentalized by the US and the UK to win over public opinions as in the case of the 2nd Iraqi war or in Afghanistan.
4-The emergence of the people’s revolutions in the Arab world with potential widespread implications is opening up new challenges to the international community especially after the adoption by the General Assembly of the UN in 2005 of the Declaration on the Responsibility to protect. What should the UN do if Arab Governments do not relinquish power gracefully? What if the armies remain loyal to the rulers and engage in brutal reprisals involving massive violations of human rights? The UN has responded in Libya by authorising an intervention but how will it cope should the situation deteriorate in other countries of the region and elsewhere? And will it manage the long-term ramifications of the prolonged conflicts e.g. refugee flows?

4.CONTROVERSIES
As to be expected the meaning of humanitarian intervention and the tasks associated with it has triggered heated controversies within the UN itself but also among humanitarian practitioners, NGOs and the academic community and most likely within the military around issues such as legitimacy, moral dilemmas, legal complexities but also policy incoherencies and lack of effectiveness as well as fierce debates on the roles of states, international institutions and NGOs: When the norms of international society are based on principles of sovereignty, non intervention and non use of force can humanitarian interventions, especially when undertaken unilaterally, be legitimate? Who controls who is a victim, who decides who is a repressive regime, and who decides when an intervention is justified? Is there a basis in international law? Indeed can a military intervention be humanitarian? Does it work? Does it address the underlying political causes of the violence and suffering? Is it possible to impose human rights or democracy by force from outside? What are the intentions and motivations of powerful states? How do we cope with the inevitable issues of selectivity and self-interest? How do we get an agreement on the appreciation of what constitute extreme situations of human suffering?
But on the other hand, for some, human rights are now intrinsic values and must prevail over state sovereignty. Haven’t the states now a moral obligation to intervene when those human rights are seriously violated? As human beings are we expected to just sit and watch images of unutterable misery and do nothing? Is national sovereignty a licence to torture imprison and kill? What is best for the victims? Isn’t the UN after all about “We the people”? But at the same time do people in the target country understand the nature of the operation? Do the people in the intervening states support it?

5. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
Kofi Annan the former Secretary General of the UN in his speech at the General Assembly in September 1999 declared that there was a developing international norm to forcibly protect civilians who were at risk from genocide and mass killings. This norm has now been codified in a new Declaration adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in the 2005 Summit, seeking to find the best ways to protect endangered peoples. The Declaration stipulates that states have primary responsibility to protect their citizens. When they fail to do so or terrorize them, the international community has a responsibility to protect them by reacting preventing and rebuilding. No criteria for assessing the gravity of the situation has been included in the Declaration leaving it to the Security Council, whose authorisation here is explicitly required, to decide.

6. ASIAN PERSPECTIVES
The debates in Asia about humanitarian intervention have not reached the intensity of those in the academic community in the West. As for the governments their positions remain marked by their own historical experiences (colonial occupation, foreign domination) weak status (developing countries) or constitutional restrictions (e.g. Japan). They remain by and large suspicious of western true motivations and rest attached to the international principles of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. In any case they reject any form of unilateral form of intervention, i.e. when not authorized by the Security Council and are keen to explore ways and means to bolster human security (security against economic deprivation, an acceptable quality of life and guarantee of fundamental human rights) as a way to prevent situations of gross abuses of human rights. But at the same time, most Asian countries have stated their adherence to international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions and more recently the 2005 Declaration on the Responsibility to protect. ASEAN is discussing ways of more flexible engagement, Japan, South Korea are participating in peace enforcement missions (Iraq, East Timor) and the moral question remains unanswered- what to do in the face of genocide in a neighbouring country?

7. A RESEARCH POLICY DIALOGUE
The purpose of the Doshisha international Conference on Humanitarian Intervention is to further the debate in Asia on the moral, legal, policy implications of humanitarian interventions versus inaction.
1-It will take the form of a research policy dialogue with the view to clarify the principles and moral dilemmas of humanitarian intervention, its complexity in terms of legal basis in international law, its requirements to ensure legitimacy and effectiveness.
2- It will explore alternatives to military intervention to ensure international cooperation in the prevention of humanitarian disasters and preservation of the right to life.
3-The Conference will put forward a set of policy issues for consideration by all actors involved in humanitarian operations as well as identify further research questions to be addressed by academia.
4-Finally the Conference will explore the interactions between Human Security and Humanitarian interventions and may decide to establish a network (possibly under the aegis of the UNESCO-MOST programme) to further the research policy dialogue on the issues raised above.
The proceedings of the Conference will be published in the form of a report and the different papers presented may be collected in a publication.

8. POSSIBLE ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES
Issues addressed by the papers could include among others:
- The philosophical historical and theoretical underpinnings of humanitarian interventions?
- International law, International Institutions and the reality of Humanitarian Interventions.
- The role of global civil society.
- Soldiers in the name of Human rights? What are the alternatives?
- Reconciling humanitarian intervention with State sovereignty and principles of non-intervention? How to address the tensions between sovereignty and the protection of the individual?
- The workings of the Security Council and the requirements of UN reforms to entrench the legitimacy and effectiveness of humanitarian interventions?
- The UN Declaration on the Responsibility to protect: New norms for “never again” or a subterfuge for big power meddling? How about the responsibility to rebuild?
- Case studies: What does the evidence reveal? In terms of motivation, decision making, conduct of operations, effectiveness in the mission, reconstruction, treatment of refugees and internally displaced persons, truth justice and reconciliation mechanisms?
- Humanitarian intervention and the indivisibility of human rights: Quid of large scale famines, wide spread health hazards, environmental crisis causing major risks for humanity?
Papers submitted by the participants should not exceed 15/20 pages, should be written in English and should endeavour to contain policy implications (and if appropriate policy recommendations).

9. PARTICIPATION AND GUESTS
Participation will be solicited from the academic community and decision makers at national and international level (with a preference for Asian Scholars), civil society organizations. A few members of the army, lawyers, and religious leaders, aid workers and association of victims of gross human rights abuses will also be invited as participants. Scholars and decision makers will be invited from countries including Japan, South Korea, China, India, East Timor and members of the ASEAN plus countries in Central Asia, the Middle East and Iran and Afghanistan. In addition, invitations will be extended to the ASEAN Secretariat and the relevant United Nations Organizations.
Costs of attendance will be borne by the participants with some exceptions linked to financial inabilities.

10.PROGRAMME OF THE CONFERENCE
The programme of the Conference will be published as soon as we receive the responses to the letters of invitations. The structure will include a first plenary round table on the 28 June in the morning followed up by breakaway sessions on the afternoon of the 28 June and morning of the 29 June. The afternoon of 29 June will be dedicated to reporting in plenary.

11.REGISTRATION.
Participation is free and is open to academics, Ngos, policy makers, students and other interested parties upon registration on the web site of the Conference.