Humanitarian intervention as a basis for using force against another nation, or within another nation’s territory, is not without its own set of legal challenges and criticisms. Russia’s justification for using force in the Crimean peninsula, in the wake of repeated calls for intervention in Syria, highlights difficulties associated with humanitarian intervention as a basis for the use of force.
On September 20, 2014, the government of Iraq informed the UN Security Council (SC) that it had requested the United States to lead international efforts to strike Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) sites. The strikes would end the constant threat posed by ISIL to Iraq, protect Iraq’s citizens, and ultimately enable Iraq to regain control of its borders.[1] The U.S. asserted that this request extended to ISIL sites in Syria.[2]
When conflict broke out in South Sudan in December 2013, the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) opened its doors to tens of thousands of displaced persons fleeing ethnic and political violence, a situation unprecedented in terms of its scale: in more than a decade of protection mandates, peacekeepers have never provided protection to so many civilians in so direct a manner.[1] Today, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) under UN protection has passed the 100,000 mark.
