ABSTRACT
Which is more important: protecting sovereignty or protecting human rights? That is the stark manner in which some frame the question posed by humanitarian intervention. When a government has turned on its own people, or is unable or unwilling to protect them, should the international community of states merely stand by and watch? An alternative framing of the question is whether one country should be allowed to determine unilaterally that a threat to human rights in another country justifies military action. If that were the case, how would we ensure that such a right of humanitarian intervention is not abused? Between these extremes, the United Nations Security Council has the power to authorize the use of military force. But Article 39 of the UN Charter specifies that the council can only do this in response to a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” When can a threat to human rights be said to reach the level of a threat to the peace?
