Law and intervention

Abstract

The end of the Cold War led to a proliferation of military intervention in violation of the principles of political sovereignty and territorial integrity. As with all forms of human interaction, intervention comes in various forms, of varying degrees of legitimacy, and which are contested to a greater or lesser extent. This paper considers differing sets of legal justifications for going to war, or for refraining from so doing, including analysis of the tension between legality and legitimacy and between codified 'positive' international law and customary international law, as well as the ramifications of political ethics and ethical dilemmas in terms of humanitarian justifications for going to war. The findings are that a shift in the practice of states and interpretations by the leading publicists has led to a more permissive norm of intervention and therefore a disjuncture between customary and positive international law.