State consent to foreign military intervention during civil wars

Abstract

The dissertation examines the legality under international law of foreign military interventions in States embroiled in an internal conflict or civil war with the consent, or at the request, of their governments. It attempts to provide a comprehensive and fresh account of the subject by analysing, among others, a detailed account of post-Cold War State practice with around 40 incidents on a scale neglected in current scholarship. Consensual interventions in principle do not present an immediate challenge to the UN Charter-based prohibition of the use of force between States. However, their legality, first and foremost, depends on the validity of the consent given and the capacity of the government to consent to foreign military intervention. Other challenges to the legality of such interventions arise from the principles with which any use of force must be consistent, such as the political independence of States and the self-determination of peoples. There are also rules of international law that do not relate to a State’s right to consent to a foreign intervention but can considerably constrain the scope of such interventions under certain circumstances, such as the rules on State complicity. The dissertation argues that the relevant rules of international law and State practice indicate that valid consent by a legitimate government is not enough to justify a foreign military intervention. Affirming the purpose-based approach and addressing the recent criticism against it, the dissertation argues that the compatibility of the objectives of consensual interventions with principles such as non-intervention and self-determination is of important consequence. The study also notably assesses the consensual interventions aimed at countering terrorism with respect to the legal distinctness of the concept of terrorism from ordinary armed rebellions. Owing to its extensive account of State practice, the study is also able to address some peripheral aspects of the subject. These relate to the legal consequences of the invocation by a State using force against a non-State armed group of two distinct legal bases, namely, its right to self-defence and the consent of the State where the group is located; the procurement by a government of foreign military assistance in response to a foreign intervention on the side of the opposition, despite a UN arms embargo prohibiting assistance to both sides alike; the endorsement by the UN Security Council of a consensual intervention; and human rights and humanitarian law violations by the consenting State.