:::: MENU ::::


A global portal of R2P-related media articles for students, scholars, and civil society.

Use force under pretext of humanitarian intervention not permitted

Middle East

Use force under pretext of humanitarian intervention not permitted

isna header

Use force under pretext of humanitarian intervention not permitted


Tehran (ISNA) – The ambassador and permanent representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN Gholamali Khoshroo emphasized that the international community must be vigilant n

ot to let the horrors of mass killings and genocide of the past be repeated in the future.

Mr. Gholamali Khoshroo made the remarks on Monday while addressing the UN General Assembly’s meeting on “Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

Here is the full text of Khoshroo’s statement:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Mr. President,

The Islamic Republic of Iran fully shares the sentiment that the international community must be vigilant not to let the horrors of mass killings and genocide of the past be repeated in the future. No one forgets how the inaction on the part of the United Nations in the face of tragic cases of genocide and crimes against humanity as well as outrageous acts of aggression in the last two decades led to the death, injury and displacement of millions of innocent people. This was more, however, due to the failure of the Security Council to act when action was needed, rather than the result of an absence of normative framework or lack of implementation of the R2P. Thus, it was the inaction of the Security Council due to the lack of political will of its some Permanent Members that brought about the horrible genocide in Rwanda and other similar catastrophes.‌


The controversies around the R2P are not rooted in the noble notion of prevention of atrocity crimes, but rather in its implementation and scope of application. Examining this concept in practical terms may put it in better perspective and help to make this abstract concept more concrete. Moreover, discussions on R2P could not be divorced from its political and legal implications. Looking forward should not relieve us from looking back and reminding ourselves of lessons of history.  It has been witnessed that, in practice, the R2P is guided by the politicized interests of certain States rather than human dignity and human rights and therefore has been taken far from its alleged objectives and purposes. This, in its turn, has put into question its legitimacy and applicability as a political tool alleged to be used in times of distress. As a result, the R2P is gradually being developed and seen as a political tool to pave the way for interventionist polices, whenever needed, in a selective manner. This is exactly where the R2P concept faces a real challenge.

Mr. president,

The normative framework regulating prevention of atrocities is already in place. Compliance with fundamental principles of international law as set forth in the UN Charter contributes to rule of law at the international level and builds upon the existing bulwarks which form the very basis of the international legal order. The main problem lies in illegitimate unilateral action by certain States which every now and then creates chaos in international relations and undermines existing normative structures. Illegal use of force blatantly demonstrated by sudden unjustified strikes in flagrant violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of UN Member States is a clear example of abusive resort to well-established rules and principles of international law governing self-defense and use of force. This is what sheds a clear light on the dark future of R2P if it is destined to be used as a political tool in furtherance of the will of a few.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that we are still far from a consensual understanding of the R2P as a concept. We maintain that prior to implementation of the R2P, it is crucial to define its normative content as well as its scope of applications. The primary responsibility to prevent commission of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity lies with sovereign States. This is echoed by the principles of international law as enshrined by the Charter and also articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 Summit Outcome Document. Other States or the international community at large may step in to help upon request on a case by case basis and through the United Nations to prevent such horrendous atrocities. This, by no means whatsoever, may imply permit to use force against another State under any pretext such as humanitarian intervention which may pave the way for all manners of politically motivated interventions in other countries. I’m sure no one would like to turn the clock back to the time when theories of “just war” prevailed.


For full article, click here


Comments are closed.