 |
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Appendix 5
International Commission on Intervention
and State Sovereignty (ICISS)—criteria for military intervention
Criteria for military intervention
As discussed in Chapter 5, the ICISS developed six criteria to
be satisfied before a military intervention takes place:
- Just cause – in order to halt or avert serious and irreparable
harm of the following kind:
- large scale loss of life, with or without genocidal intent; or
- large scale ethnic cleansing;
- Right intention – the primary purpose must be to prevent or stop
human suffering;
- Last resort – only when all non-military option have been
explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have
succeeded;
- Proportional means – the scale, duration and intensity should be
the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective;
- Reasonable prospects – there must be a reasonable chance of
success, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the
consequences of inaction; and
- Right authority – The ICISS considered that there is no better or
more appropriate body than the UN Security Council to authorise military
intervention for human protection purposes and make the hard decisions about
overriding state sovereignty. In its view, the task is not to find alternatives
to the Security Council as a source of authority, but to make it work better
than it has. If the Security Council fails to act, two alternative options are
suggested:
- to seek support for military action from the UN General Assembly
meeting in an emergency session under the established "Uniting for
Peace" procedure; or
- the UN Security Council to authorise regional organisations under
Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.[1]
Operational principles
Where a decision is made to carry out a military intervention
based on the responsibility to protect, the ICISS identified the following
broad operational principles for a successful intervention:
- Clear objectives; clear and unambiguous mandate; allocation of
sufficient resources;
- Common military approach; unity of command; clear and unequivocal
communications and chain of command;
- Acceptance of limitations, incremental and gradual application of
force, the objective being protection of a population, not defeat of a state;
- Rules of engagement which fit the operational concept; are
precise; reflect the principle of proportionality; and involve total adherence
to international humanitarian law;
- Acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal
objective; and
- Maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organisations.[2]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 26 August 2008 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
