Re-Assessing the Use of Indirect Force for Humanitarian Purposes

This chapter critiques the humanitarian arguments often used to justify supporting opposition groups in overthrowing a government accused of brutalising its own people. This chapter argues that the current framing of humanitarianism within mainstream scholarship falls short in adequately addressing issues related to the exercise of state power, particularly the use of indirect force by states in the name of pursuing ‘humanitarian’ goals within a target state. Like the issues examined in Chapter 4 , humanitarian justification is regarded as an extra-legal argument within the framework of the UN Charter. It assesses the validity of arguments for and against the use of indirect force by analysing the historical development of humanitarian reasoning, including how states have exploited it under various rebranded labels, classified as either old or new humanitarianism. In this context, insights are drawn from earlier state practices and reactions to humanitarian arguments in specific cases, notably, the late 20th-century interventions in Cambodia and Uganda, as well as the more recent examples of Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, to evaluate the strengths of these humanitarian claims. The primary argument of the chapter is that the devastating consequences of using indirect force on humanitarian grounds far outweigh any claimed benefits or merits.