Solidarist case for Humanitarian Intervention
Solidarism:
Solidarism argues that states have both a legal right and a moral duty to intervene in situations of genocide and mass killing that offend against minimum standards of humanity. Solidarist claimed that whatever the legality of humanitarian intervention, there is a moral duty of forcibly intervention in situations of extreme humanitarian emergency. (Wheeler & Bellamy, 2005: 559)
Counter-restrictionist:
Counter-restrictionist case for a legal right of individual and collective humanitarian intervention rests on two claims:
(1) the UN Charter commits states to protecting human rights
(2) there is a right of humanitarian intervention in customary international law (Arend and Beck, 1993: 132)
With reference to the preamble to the UN Charter and Article 1 (3), 55 and 56 of the Charter, it is clear that the human rights provisions of the Charter provide a secure legal basis for unilateral forcibly intervention. (Reisman and McDougal, 2000)
Also, states were permitted to engage in humanitarian intervention under pre-Charter customary international law. Humanitarian intervention' right exists in customary international law already. (Arend and Back, 1993: 6)
Morally requirement:
Humanitarian intervention belongs in the realm not of law but of moral choice which nations must sometimes make. Morally required is a much stronger one than the proposition that there is a legal right to engage in this practice because while the existence of a right enables action it does not determine it. (Franck and Rodley, 1973: 304)
