AO1: The development of the 2005 Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept provides circumstances in which humanitarian intervention can take place against the wishes of a sovereign state AO2: Responsibility to Protect suggests that part of state sovereignty is the responsibility of a state to look after its own citizens and that the international community should intervene through humanitarian intervention if necessary AO3: In this case, state sovereignty appears to encourage and support humanitarian intervention rather than oppose it, making humanitarian intervention more effective in protecting human rights Humanitarian intervention can be immediate and put moral obligations above state sovereignty in the state system Humanitarian intervention can sometimes be carried out by a single determined state or small alliance saving time that courts and tribunals would take to act Where a single state decides to carry out humanitarian intervention it can protect human rights quickly and without the need for debate and discussion in international courts and tribunals, making humanitarian intervention far more effective The end of the Cold War seemed to issue a new era or golden age of humanitarian intervention in which state sovereignty could be ignored where human rights violations required intervention The lack of effective courts and tribunals at the end of the Cold War meant that states needed to carry out humanitarian intervention in order to protect human rights Successful intervention such as that which occurred in Sierra Leone, East Timor, and Kosovo supported the idea that humanitarian intervention was the best way to protect human rights where courts and tribunals were lacking, suggesting humanitarian intervention is more effective International courts and tribunals are ineffective in taking direct action to protect human rights as they are often joined voluntarily and allow opt outs and protection for certain states International courts and tribunals lack the military force or arrest powers required to protect human rights, often relying on voluntary action, allowing ‘opt outs’ and recognising the principle of state sovereignty The ability of certain states to take effective military action where the international community and courts and tribunals seem unwilling or unable to do so suggest that humanitarian intervention is more effective 2019 Q3B Evaluate the extent to which human rights are more effectively protected by humanitarian intervention than by international courts and tribunals.

AO1: Courts and tribunals have more legitimacy in the international community AO2: Internal courts and tribunals tend to be created by United Nations Resolutions or by regional agreement which provides them with a greater degree of legitimacy than humanitarian intervention AO3: A greater degree of legitimacy helps to ensure that courts and tribunals can be more effective than humanitarian intervention Courts and tribunals have more international support than individual acts of humanitarian intervention and there is an expectation that they will deal with human rights issues There has been an increased number of courts and tribunals involved in protecting human rights both regionally and globally from the European Court of Human Rights to UN Special Tribunals and the International Criminal Court The growing expectation that human rights will be protected by the increased numbers of courts and tribunals ensures that they are more effective and legitimate than individual acts of humanitarian intervention Humanitarian intervention has become discredited and is often seen as an excuse for the selfish actions of states There are suggestions that humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia in the 1990s were failures and that in some cases humanitarian intervention can make matters worse Intervention in cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan may have been ineffective or even worsened human rights conditions which suggests that international courts and tribunals may be better suited to protecting human rights Humanitarian intervention has led to accusations of double standards being levelled against those who carry out the intervention Humanitarian intervention takes place when a militarily powerful state decides to take action in a militarily weaker state and yet offers no opportunity for human rights protection when abuses are carried out by powerful states as with the US and Guantanamo Bay or Russian action in Chechnya or Ukraine The selective nature of humanitarian intervention suggests that international courts and tribunals are a better route to follow in protection of human rights