Authored by Virendra Pratap Singh Rathod, B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Fourth Year at the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun
Introduction
In his 1948 novel, “Intruder in the Dust,“ American novelist William Faulkner memorably wrote:
“War began the first time some man looked at another with a sword in his hand and thought he could do better.“ Contrary to expectations, Faulkner’s poignant observation cannot be relegated to an archaism of old. Many modern conflicts, especially in Africa, have similarly emerged from human ambition, rivalry, and the conviction that forceful entry could rectify perceived injustices or enhance political authority amidst instability and mass destitution. The statement, thus, continues to bear a haunting veracity for many today, in lands deemed as needing “development,” where people and time have but moved. Ethiopia is one such place.
The outbreak of the Tigray conflict in November 2020 is the marker of a critical juncture in Ethiopia’s political trajectory, one that reverberates far beyond its borders. It appears from the outside that it was a sudden escalation between the federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), an ethnicity-centered, nationalist political party.[i] Herein lies more than what meets the eye.
The roots of confrontation run deep. Ethiopia’s notion of “ethnic federalism“ was established in the 1990s under the authority of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a coalition of various tribe-based parties steered by the TPLF. The ethnic federal structure established by the EPRDF conferred substantial autonomy upon regional states, notably Tigray, where the TPLF exerted considerable influence.[ii]
However, this arrangement also planted seeds for future tensions. The rise of Abiy Ahmed as the country’s Prime Minister in 2018 marked a significant turning point. Upon Hailemariam Desalegn’s resignation, Abiy took charge. He demolished the EPRDF and replaced it with a more unified “Prosperity Party,“ sidelining the TPLF in the process. For the latter, this signalled an existential threat to its influence and autonomy over Tigray whilst exacerbating long-standing grievances.[iii]
The simmering tensions erupted into open hostilities subsequent to TPLF’s armed assault on the bases of the Ethiopian National Defence Force (ENDF) in Tigray on November 4, 2020. Ahmed’s government swiftly framed the same as an act of treason, causing it to consequently launch a military offensive in response.[iv]
These facts, plain as any history, reveal a troubled state of affairs. But, they are not history. They are the present. They also hide the very human toll that the ongoing war has taken upon the Ethiopian people today.
Human beings are peculiar in that we have a tendency to forget “A“ in favour of “B“ and so on. Like our primate brethren, we are biologically inclined to notice one shiny thing at a time. Hence, it may be that the more recent annexations by Russia and Israel in Ukraine and Palestine, respectively, have captured the global attention, prompting many to forget all else.
Admittedly, these conflicts differ significantly in geopolitical dynamics; the Tigray crisis primarily arose from internal ethnic tensions and questions of regional autonomy, rather than international territorial annexations involving major global powers as overt perpetrators and/or abettors. Yet, such distinctions in no way diminish the former’s urgency or severity. Simply because news agencies do not air it, the conflict (and its many scars) do not vanish.
Human Rights Watch reports widespread atrocities and pervasive violations, encompassing ethnic cleansing, violence rooted in gender, systemic sexual enslavement, and the obliteration of critical infrastructure, including healthcare facilities and educational institutions. The circumstances in Tigray could very well be described as “catastrophic” without accusations of hyperbole, with over two million forceful displacements, disturbances within systems of food production and its dissemination. The consequences: acute food shortages and a looming famine carrying a strong propensity to affect large swathes of the country.[v]
The actions of the government have very well made a humanitarian crisis. In the garb of military necessity, they have sought to justify cutoffs to water, electricity, and medical supplies. The United Nations (UN) projects that approximately 5.2 million individuals, constituting 90% of the population in Tigray, are in immediate need of essential sustenance.
The broader international response to the crisis, however, has been erratic and inconsistent, at best. The United States, European Union, and the UN have all expressed grave concerns about the ongoing inhumanities (alongside increased possibility of genocide), with calls for immediate and unfettered access and assistance to affected regions at varying instances. The U.S. has imposed trade blockades for intermittent periods since the war began.[vi] However, the Ethiopian government has largely dismissed these calls, accusing international actors of meddling in its internal affairs.[vii]
The purpose of the present piece, is to herewith examine the viability of plausible international intervention on humanitarian grounds based on an analysis of the first principles of international law, as established by its father, Hugo Grotius.
The Justification of Humanitarian Intervention
Natural law as posited by Grotius is founded upon the conceptual belief that moral principles are intrinsic and universally imperative, originating from nature itself, hence the name. Said principles include a moral duty to protect individuals subjected to grave injustices in war, which (notably) has evolved to form the basis for obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine (discussed shortly hereinafter).[viii]
While Grotius was mainly concerned with the regulation of relations between states, having borne witness to countless civil wars ravaging Europe at the time as a Dutch diplomat. He also articulated that intervention, particularly in cases of gross violations of natural law, can be explained as a necessary response to restore justice and order. In his seminal work, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (The Law of War and Peace), he argued that the law of nature endows individuals, and by extension, sovereign states, with the right to defend not only their own rights but also the rights of others when fundamental laws are violated.[ix]
At the core of the theory lies the notion of a just war (bellum justum), which is described by him as warfare pursued to maintain or re-establish justice. He asserts that interference is permissible in cases where innocent individuals are subject to unjust suffering, and where a sovereign authority, through acts of cruelty, forfeits its legitimacy.[x]
This notion of forfeiture, in the author’s opinion, directly challenges the modern understanding of state sovereignty as absolute, suggesting instead that sovereignty is contingent on the “just“ treatment of citizens. This is because in cases where governments engage in acts of tyranny, a Grotian viewpoint suggests that external actors have not only the right but the moral obligation to intervene on behalf of the oppressed.[xi]
This must be understood in conjunction with “moral protectionism,“ which akin to its economic counterpart (i.e. protecting domestic industries against foreign competitors) deals with the protection of entities (non-citizens outside the intervening state’s territory, in this case) not owing to a legal need but a perceived moral one. It, therefore, serves as the ethical essence of wartime interference.
Further, such ideas have morphed to find modern resonance, chiefly the aforementioned R2P doctrine, which was formally adopted by the UN in 2005.[xii]
It advocates for a shared obligation amongst the international community of states to take preventive measures against egregious acts, including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. It further stipulates that if a state is “unwilling or unable to protect its population“ from said egregious harms, said community has a duty to step in (municipally speaking), through diplomatic, altruistic, or other means, to restore peace, order, and justice.[xiii]
Hugo in Tigray: Prospect And Peril
One might argue that flagrant breaches of civilian safety and well-being present a compelling case for external interposition. Historically, similar justifications were employed in NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing, as well as the 2011 international interference in Libya authorized by UNSC Resolution 1973, aimed explicitly at safeguarding civilians from “imminent harm” by state forces.
In Tigray, the reported crimes against civilians, (inclusive of the fact that governmental authority is being used to effectively legitimise starvation as a weapon of war), provide a clear parallel to Grotian thought; Ethiopia’s conduct towards its population has become intolerably unjust, causing immense harm to the security and health of its citizens. The obstinate government is currently unwilling to alter its ways in furtherance. As preposterous as it may sound, R2P provides a lawful basis for foreign states to intrude in Ethiopia and disarm all warring factions.[xiv]
However, it would be naïve to cast away doubts in favour of legal comfort. Not everything lawful is judicious or morally sound. In the end, we are dealing with a justification as regards breaching another’s territorial sovereignty (which serves as a fundamental part of any state’s makeup as per the customs now codified in the Montevideo Convention of 1933).
One of the primary criticisms of the approach is the potential for misuse, of a “meddling intrusion“ by powerful states for political, economic, or strategic gain. Grotius himself acknowledged this risk, warning that actions presented as “humanitarian” could serve as a disguise for imperialistic endeavors or unwarranted intrusions into the internal matters of less powerful states.
This concern remains relevant in the Tigray context, where several international actors (who are major powers) have been highly desirous of giving aid when failing to do so for other ongoing conflicts on the continent. This eagerness, particularly in light of Ethiopia’s strategic importance in the Horn of Africa as a trade centre and possessing rich mineral deposits may serve to supplement the aforementioned criticism.[xv]
Moreover, another significant limitation of Grotius’ theory lies in its lack of clear legal mechanisms to enforce the moral imperative of what is essentially, encroachment. While he posits that natural law provides sufficient justification for states to intervene in cases of extreme injustice, modern international law remains deeply divided on the viability of unilateral intervention. In the case of Tigray, no state or international coalition has actually stepped forward to invoke R2P or initiate an incursion unto Ethiopia, for it is a hefty task carrying strong imperialist connotations whose reprehension no state is willing to undertake without satisfying itself as to the benefits therefrom outweighing the risks thereto. It does not help that there exists no extant international instrument to guide state action.
In conclusion, the international community is continually grappling to deliver responses to never-ending crises (think Syria, Myanmar, Bangladesh, South Sudan inter alia). In the same vein, the commission of severe atrocities and the Ethiopian government’s unwillingness to protect its own citizens present a compelling case for R2P whilst the high, concurrent propensity for resource exploitation cannot be obviated. One thing becomes clear: there are no easy solutions.
Here, the author is reminded of the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, who once, in his magnum opus “War and Peace,“ had observed, “The strongest of all warriors are these two – Time and Patience.“ As we find ourselves in the Anthropocene, the truth behind his words remains to be seen.
[i] Philippe Pellet, Understanding the 2020-2021 Tigray Conflict in Ethiopia: Background, Root Causes, and Consequences, KKI Policy Brief KE-2021/39, Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade (2021).
[ii] Abdisa Olkeba Jima, Ethiopian Political Crisis after Reform: Causes of Tigray Conflict, 9 Cogent Social Sciences 1 (2023).
[iii] Id.
[iv] Jima, supra note 2, at 3.
[v] H. Gesesew et. al., The impact of war on the health system of the Tigray region in Ethiopia: an assessment. 6 BMJ Global Health (2021).
[vi] Jon Abbink, The Ethiopia Conflict in International Relations and Global Media Discourse, in A History of Humanitarian Intervention (Mark Swatek-Evenstein ed., Cambridge University Press 2021).
[vii] Id.
[viii] Peter Hilpold, R2P and Humanitarian Intervention in a Historical Perspective, in Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A New Paradigm for International Law (Peter Hilpold ed., Brill 2015).
[ix] Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace (Cambridge University Press 2012).
[x] Renee Jeffery, Hugo Grotius in International Thought (Palgrave MacMillan 2006).
[xi] Id.
[xii] The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas and Practice from the Nineteenth Century to the Present (Fabian Klose ed., Cambridge University Press 2015).
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Jeffrey, supra note 10.
[xv] Klose, supra note 12.