인도적 간섭: 자유주의와 포스트모더니즘에 입각한 담론

Abstract

Humanitarian intervention is on the crossroad between the universal protection of human rights and the inviolability of State sovereignty. I assume that the fact whether the concept of the humanitarian intervention is lawful or not under international law, is greatly based on the value judgement that which of the two values has priority. If the universal protection of human rights is more important than the inviolability of State sovereignty, humanitarian intervention could be considered to be lawful. But, if the inviolability of State sovereignty is more valuable than the universal protection of human rights, humanitarian intervention could be considered to be unlawful. I presume that both the universal protection of human rights and the inviolability of State sovereignty are the most important values that international law intends to protect. In the case where two basic values are in conflict, we must first reconcile the conflict, then, if it is impossible to reconcile them, we must choose one of them. In choosing one value against the other, the value system of the interpreter involves. I used two value systems, i.e. liberalism, and postmodernism in judging the legality of humanitarian intervention. Liberalism is a philosophical idea according to which the rights of individual are the basic values for which the State or society exists. On the other hand, the postmodernism is, although it is distinguished from Statist, more concerned with the value of a community than liberalism. The postmodern philosophers consider that each community has its own value which must be respected by the other communities. Thus, the proponent of liberalism is likely to argue that humanitarian intervention should be accepted in a wide sense. But the proponent of postmodernism is prone to ague that the wide acceptance of humanitarian intervention could jeopardize the value of protecting the identity and integrity of a community. It is not easy to decide which view is correct in a real world. But it may be said that when we look at the alleged humanitarian intervention cases, we may find out that they rarely satisfy the requirements of humanitarian intervention. It means that the concept of humanitarian intervention is employed for the purpose of camouflaging the real intent. In this regard, it is arguable that, even though the humanitarian intervention is accepted, it should be accepted under a very limited condition.