wfn.org | Title: Principles for intervention to protect human rights

["WCC Media" <Media@wcc-coe.org>]

World Council of Churches 7 Press Update 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 17/11/2003 - pu-03-45 

Diplomat and theologian offer principles for intervention to
protect human rights and prevent genocide 

Cf. WCC Press Update PU-03-44 of 14 November 2003 
Cf. WCC Press Update PU-03-43 of 13 November 2003 
Cf. WCC Press Update PU-03-42 of 11 November 2003 
Cf. WCC Press Release PR-03-33 of 6 November 2003 

Free high-resolution photos available - see below 

Two advocates for peace and human rights outlined principles for

international intervention - including the possibility of
military action - 
where violence or genocide threaten basic human rights at a 13
November 
public forum entitled "The responsibility to protect". The forum
was part 
of a World Council of Churches (WCC) International Affairs and
Advocacy 
Week in New York. 

For Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations minister
councillor 
Gleyn Berry, preventing or ending violence and atrocities has
been the 
theme of a "millennia-long conversation". The subject remains
particularly 
relevant, Berry said, in view of such modern-day examples as the
killing 
fields in Cambodia and the genocidal slaughter of innocents in
Kosovo and 
Rwanda. 

"The goal of international efforts is to prevent such incidences
of 
violence before they occur," he said, explaining that the
underlying 
principle is to move nations and international bodies towards
recognition 
of internationally recognized norms and laws so that neither
prevention nor 
intervention is ultimately necessary. 

The proper role of government 

Although conversations are under way in international bodies and
among 
nations, it is important to remember that they should remain
centered 
within the context of the well-being of individual human beings,
Berry 
reminded the forum participants. "Inherent in this notion is
that it is the 
proper role and responsibility of government to protect all its
citizens." 

For Berry, "there is such a jealous protection of the
sovereignty of the 
nation state" in the modern world that the concept of
international 
jurisdiction in areas of human rights and the prevention of
atrocities "is 
extremely sensitive". 

The international community represented by the United Nations
"is not ready 
for a serious debate on the obligations of sovereignty". Thus a
"broader 
definition of sovereignty" that does not focus narrowly on
military and 
political control of a specified territory, but rather "on the
obligations 
of nation states to protect the human rights of their citizens"
is needed. 

Acknowledging that the attempt to develop an international
consensus on 
this subject will "require a long-term effort to change norms,"
he insisted 
that the conversation must be broadened beyond the UN to include
civil 
society, NGOs, political parties and other interest groups, and
communities 
of faith. 

'Human security' 

Noting that "at present, there is no consensus among those
responsible for 
international law or policy making" about when to consider
international 
action, WCC general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser urged
participants to 
employ the WCCs concept of "protection" over "intervention".
This shift in 
terminology "broadens the perspective by adopting the wider
principle of 
human security over against the narrow understanding of national

security," he suggested. 

Raiser highlighted an inherent tension in the UN Charter between
"the 
prohibition of intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign
states, 
and the affirmation of the universal validity of human rights
and 
recognition that the observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms 
for all is essential for international peace". 

Asserting that Christians "cannot escape making decisions
involving moral 
and ethical uncertainties," Raiser noted that the ecumenical
movement 
itself contains believers who differ about whether the teachings
of Jesus 
allow the use of armed force. He noted that some uses of force
are 
commonly accepted throughout the international community - such
as the 
creation of police forces to defend individual rights and
security, or the 
use of force in cases of individual self-defence. 

Yet, Raiser reminded his audience, such accepted uses of force
are held 
with certain limits: nearly all nations distinguish between the
roles of 
police and military, and most nations submit policing functions
to judicial 
examination. 

Who decides? 

Raiser posed some crucial questions on the use of force on the 
international level. "Who makes the assessment that human
security in a 
given state is endangered to such an extent that protection
becomes a 
concern for the international community, and on the basis of
what 
criteria?" he asked. "Who has the legitimate authority to take
this 
decision on behalf of the international community?" 

A decision to intervene "cannot be based solely on moral
arguments, or on 
grounds of political expediency; it should pass through the
trustees of the 
rule of law," Raiser insisted. Since the UN Security Council
currently acts 
"both as trustee of international law and as the enforcing
authority," the 
current configuration is "politically and ethically
unsatisfactory, and 
opens the door to selective and arbitrary decisions," he
suggested. 

Principles for protection 

There is an emerging consensus around the globe to recognize
such 
international tribunals as the International Court of Justice
and the 
International Criminal Court. But until that consensus is
universally 
accepted, some general principles are needed to protect
endangered 
populations, Raiser said. 

"In a situation of a dramatic breakdown of public order and the
inability 
or unwillingness of the existing government to protect citizens,
the basic 
objective of any international intervention must remain to
re-establish a 
functioning framework of government which can assume the
responsibility to 
protect - however imperfectly," he said. 

However, a military intervention "causing disproportionate
numbers of 
civilian casualties and vast damage to civilian infrastructure
in violation 
of the Geneva Convention cannot be considered humanitarian,"
Raiser 
argued. Any military protection must be "proportional" to the
scale and 
scope of the conflict, and "even military protection for
humanitarian 
action can compromise its objectives," he warned. 

"Human rights cannot be enforced by military means. In contrast
to 
military logic, it is precisely the purpose of international
humanitarian 
law to protect the rights and dignity of people in situations of
war," 
Raiser asserted. 

The text of Rev. Dr Raiser's presentation is available on our
website: 
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/kr-ny-03.html 

Free high-resolution photos from the WCC New York Advocacy Week
are 
available on our website:
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/churchcenter-ny.html 

The complete programme of public seminars of the Advocacy Week
and biodata 
about the key speakers are available at: 
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/press_corner/advocacyweek-prog.html 

For more information contact: Media Relations Office 
tel: (+41 22) 791 64 21 / (+41 22) 791 61 53 
e-mail:media@wcc-coe.org 
http://www.wcc-coe.org 

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches, now
342, in 
more than 120 countries in all continents from virtually all
Christian 
traditions. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member church but
works 
cooperatively with the WCC. The highest governing body is the
assembly, 
which meets approximately every seven years. The WCC was
formally 
inaugurated in 1948 in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Its staff is
headed by 
general secretary Konrad Raiser from the Evangelical Church in
Germany.