Use of Force in Humanitarian Crises: Addressing the Limitations of UN Security Council Authorization

"While the use of force without explicit UN authorization may be perceived as pushing the limits of international law," PAUL R. WILLIAMS and SOPHIE PEARLMAN argue, "a framework helps to ensure that use of force will fit under R2P." The authors propose the following criteria:
(1) a prima facie case must be established that atrocity crimes are occurring or are about to occur;
(2) peaceful options have been exhausted;
(3) the Security Council is unable to act in a timely and appropriate manner;
(4) any military force used must be limited to low-intensity options designed to protect populations and must be carried out in such a way as to limit collateral damage;
(5) the use of low-intensity military force must be authorized by a legitimate authority, which could include the UN General Assembly, regional organizations, or international coalitions;
(6) the intervention must come at the request of credible opposition groups that represent victims of atrocity crimes and shall be done collectively by members of the
international community; and
(7) the use of force should be followed up with or integrated into a larger strategy and policy for addressing the humanitarian crisis.
"[Such a framework] would allow for interventions to protect civilians in situations where the Security Council is gridlocked but a rogue state is actively harming or plans to harm its people and would codify a customary international legal norm for humanitarian intervention. Moreover, this framework would provide opportunities for justifying the use of force along the lines of international law and for the U.S. to cite international law as a legal justification for its actions."