Dr. Hamzah described four "truths:" First, while treaties and international agreements define certain behavioral parameters, states can unilaterally choose to ignore these under the guise of political imperatives, economic demands, and other self-serving actions. Second, oceans serve and link the international community, and acknowledging that fact demands global cooperation. Third, "impermissible" actions by any one state have an adverse impact on global security. Finally, while compliance with established international law is expected, it is not the sole rationale. Dr. Hamzah noted that military officers, in particular, still have an obligation to exercise prudence, discretion, and good judgment.

Humanitarian Intervention

When should such intervention take place? How severe must the humanitarian crisis be? And when does a state relinquish – to the international community – its right to govern according to its norms? The answer is not patently obvious nor, Mr. Kosirnik stated, is it within ICRC purview. Previous international law provided for only one type of humanitarian intervention: to protect or evacuate people who could no longer rely on the host government for safety. Today, these operations are intended to save lives or stop abuses perpetrated by governments against its own people. Somalia is a case in point. Hence the need to define the type of intervention and articulate respective roles.

Mr. Kosirnik stressed military forces cannot be relief workers. Those are separate and distinct roles that are, however, not mutually exclusive. Military forces can come between combatants, enforce peace and, if necessary, address threats in a manner appropriate to the circumstances. Relief workers, however, must concentrate on their missions, and dispense aid according to need, not politics. When urgent and basic humanitarian needs are required, internationally backed military intervention may be the only way to ensure relief by humanitarian institutions. Mr. Kosirnik noted that armed forces have the capability and training to move significant amounts of material in a relatively short period of time, and this assistance may be the vanguard of future support by the international community. However, that fact should not "politically color" the subsequent (purely civilian) relief effort that follows.

The ICRC believes the 1949 Geneva Conventions define the rationale for humanitarian intervention, i.e., that states are compelled to intervene in good faith adherence to the principles subscribed to by all. In 1977, Article 89 of Additional Protocol I was passed, which states, in effect, signatories undertake to act, either unilaterally or in concert with others, to address "serious violations" impacting humanitarian rights. To be certain, noted Mr. Kosirnik, the Articles are silent on what action is to be taken, only stressing that action should be taken consistent with other obligations under the common framework. Of course, intervention "actions" could include, but are not necessarily limited to, diplomatic representations and pressure, sanctions, and a systematic policy for prosecuting war criminals.