Of course, conflict-induced displacement requires a sustainable solution. In this respect, there are several options such as local integration, regional integration, resettlement and repatriation. Among the options, repatriation is the most suitable solution to conflict-induced displacement. But the problem is that the process of repatriation is not effective on most occasions. The available options that are now employed for the repatriation are mostly diplomatic. But diplomatic efforts are mostly ineffective and due to the lack of effectiveness of the available options, Amir Mohammad Sayem in his article on ”Conflict-induced displacement” published in the Daily Observer (December 10-13, 2018) proposed an integrated framework for dealing with conflict-induced displacement and suggested just military intervention as another process of repatriation, especially in certain cases.
The article provides some significant justification for military intervention to secure repatriation in the place of origin. He justifies just military intervention by referring to the concept of self-determination. Notably, the concept is rendered as the basis of sovereign states and usually indicates that every nation state has the right to decide its own fate without any external intervention. Precisely, the concept indicates that a people having equal rights and fair equality of opportunities have the right to choose internal political status and sovereignty in a free manner without any external intervention. To justify his proposed just military intervention, the author refers to the recent usage of the concept by the minority groups who justify their right to self-determination as a way of ending repression, persecution, or the violation of human rights by the majority groups or the state party.
According to the latter understanding of the concept, the right to the self-determination does not exist especially when a group of people is persecuted or displaced because of persecution by the state authority or the majority group especially on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, political opinions and some other criteria. This is especially the case for the persecuted minority groups. Based on such a convincing argument, the author suggests for just international military intervention aiming at the protecting lives of a considerable number of people from persecution and the protection from the violation of human rights, especially which are fundamental for everyone across countries, by disregarding the territorial integrity of sovereign nation-states.
No doubt, the author is reasonable in his argument. Indeed, the right to self-determination of a people does not truly exist when a group of people, a part of the whole population, cannot determine their rights and are deprived of their rights and persecuted by the state authority or any other groups within the state since a state consists of all members of it and the responsibility of the state is to secure the rights of all including the minority groups. Also, enforced displacement violates equal rights and fair equality of opportunities, two important aspects of self-determination, of a group of people in a nation-state. Under such circumstances, the people do not freely decide the internal political status, the core aspect of the concept of self-determination.
Though the author establishes self-determination as a convincing reason for just military intervention, he does not give sufficient focus on the refutation of territorial integrity, which is given precedence over self-determination in international documents including the UN Charter. No doubt, territorial integrity, which includes territorial preservation and territorial sovereignty, is a customary international law that indicates that each nation-state has its right to defend itself from foreign aggression and that prohibits the use of force by any external power. This clearly unjustifies any sort of military intervention at least in the legal sense. But, notably, the author argues for the extent of the persecution or violation of human rights by referring to the number of displaced people such as 100,000 or more as a criterion, along with others, for just military intervention through the violation of territorial integrity.
Of course, a significant extent of persecution/human rights violation, understood by a certain number of conflict-induced displaced people, weakens the legal ground of territorial integrity of nation-states as self-determination is also given significant emphasis, although less than territorial integrity, in international documents including the UN Charter. Also, the humanitarian grounds or sufferings of the people are sometimes stronger enough and form the moral grounds for restoring justice in sovereign countries by disregarding territorial integrity. It is pertinent to say that the same UN Charter also provides a scope of humanitarian intervention, the use or the threat of use of military force, for securing self-government and some other issues. Thus, the author seems convincing with his self-determination based justifications for military intervention since the given issue is the enforced displacement of a significant number of people, though territorial integrity is given precedence over self-determination.
But, undeniably, there are some practical aspects that are pertinent to any military intervention but are absent in the article including collateral effects. No doubt, any military intervention, even if given by the United Nations’ mandate, may unintentionally result in more negative outcomes including larger displacement than the number for which just military intervention is given and a large number of deaths of civilians. Of course, unintended effects depend on the military strength of the intervened country, geopolitical situation and some other reasons. Less powerful countries are usually less likely to be successful in fighting against strong military intervention for long, given that there is no/inadequate support from other powerful countries. But when the potential militarily intervened country is powerful, more displacements, along with other collateral effects, are likely to result. Under such a context, military intervention does not seem reasonable.
But military intervention against less powerful countries mainly due to fewer collateral effects is clearly a discriminatory approach, which is not only unjust but also unsupported by various international documents. Undeniably, such an approach will only establish the might-based right in the world rather than justice. Consequently, just military intervention especially against only weaker countries weakens the general ground of the just military intervention to secure the repatriation of a large number of displaced people at least somewhat. Yet, military intervention may not be always unjustified in certain cases depending on the extent of the displacement. But this simultaneously puts importance on other efforts to find out the preferred durable solution to conflict-induced displacement such as repatriation.
Though the noted article has some justifications for the military intervention against large-scale displacement with an intention to repatriate displaced people, it has limitations. Thus, non-military efforts including diplomacy are always preferable to military intervention for repatriation, though these need to be made effective. Of course, the author justly notes that just international military intervention needs to be given as a last resort, especially when other efforts including diplomatic efforts completely fail to secure repatriation. But potential collateral effects need to be well-calculated before any repatriation-oriented military intervention under the mandate of the United Nations and well-managed, if any such intervention is needed and given in certain cases.
Nota Bene: The article on which this commentary is made was also written by me. Of course, writing commentaries on one’s own writing is not a usual approach but I wrote a commentary on my published article as a sample of commentary of the magazine.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine, its employees or any other authors. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
