.png)
A military coup d'état (coup) was executed in Myanmar in 2021, marked by the arbitrary detention of State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President U Win Myint—followed by the subsequent arrest of elected members of the national parliament from the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) party. Fundamentally, the NLD's resounding victory in the 2020 general election set the stage for the coup, orchestrated by the Myanmar Armed Forces (Tatmadaw), which prompted fears of attempts to diminish the military's influence through constitutional amendments. The NLD's failure to address pressing economic and social issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and ethnic minority conflicts, provided the Tatmadaw with additional justification for the coup.
The Tatmadaw has invoked Articles 417 and 418 of the Myanmar Constitution as the legal basis for the coup—which the Articles stipulate that a state of emergency may be declared in the event of a grave threat to the union and sovereignty of the state, thereby allowing the transfer of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This has been subject to criticism, with many arguing that both the coup and the declared state of emergency are unconstitutional. The United Nations (UN) and numerous countries, including the United States (US), Australia, members of the European Union, and others have condemned the coup and called for the release of the detained leaders. The widespread human rights abuses following the 2021 coup in Myanmar have drawn global attention and prompted calls for humanitarian intervention.
Henceforth, the Tatmadaw committed many human rights violations that led to the necessity to protect human rights and prevent the perpetuation of unimaginable suffering.
Human Rights Abuses by the Tatmadaw
The military coup in Myanmar has triggered a wave of human rights abuses that have captured global attention. According to Amnesty International, since the 2021 coup, over 4.000 individuals, primarily civilians, have been killed by the military. This figure saw a significant increase in 2023, with a total of 1.345 civilians killed. Moreover, over 25.000 people have been arrested since the coup, with 20.000 remaining in detention as of December 2023, including political leaders, activists, journalists, and medical workers. Furthermore, the Tatmadaw has been accused of conducting grossly unfair trials of detainees, particularly pro-democracy activists and those perceived as opposing military authority. Women and children have also been victims of human rights abuses, including forced military conscription, which has led to increased cases of extreme abuse and sexual violence.
As the State (Myanmar) acceded to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the actions taken by the Tatmadaw (which has declared itself the ruling authority in Myanmar) constitute violations of the provisions set forth in those conventions. Articles 19 and 34 of the CRC mandate that states protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, including torture, cruel treatment, sexual exploitation, and abuse. Cases of extreme abuse and sexual violence against children during military operations represent direct violations of these provisions. Furthermore, Article 1 of CEDAW defines discrimination against women as any distinction or treatment based on gender that results in the reduction or elimination of women's rights. The practice of forced conscription, which also targets women, along with gender-based violence and sexual crimes, reflects systematic discrimination against women.
Furthermore, the Tatmadaw has conducted indiscriminate attacks targeting civilian infrastructure, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. Additionally, the Tatmadaw has systematically blocked humanitarian aid, attacked aid workers and medical facilities, and restricted access to conflict zones, exacerbating the suffering of millions of civilians. These actions add to the long list of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Tatmadaw. It is important to note that the prohibition of serious human rights abuses, such as torture, cruel treatment, mass attacks, and denial of humanitarian aid—constitutes peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) that are binding on all states and cannot be derogated from. The series of human rights abuses in Myanmar has prompted calls from various states for the Security Council to take decisive action against the violence perpetrated by the Tatmadaw and to address the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Myanmar. This has sparked further discourse on humanitarian intervention and the dilemma of state sovereignty.
Realism vs Constructivism on Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention differs from humanitarian aid, which is reactive, and political intervention, which aims to impose specific civil authority structures. The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly complex, resting on the dilemma between protecting human rights and respecting state sovereignty. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state in ways that are inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. However, Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to take measures, including military action, to maintain or restore international peace and security. This suggests the existence of legitimate grounds for humanitarian intervention when sanctioned by the Security Council. Nonetheless, there remains significant debate among scholars regarding the merits of such interventions—it classifies perspectives on humanitarian intervention into two camps: realism and constructivism.
A. Realism on Humanitarian Intervention
Realism emphasizes that states primarily focus on their own advantages and benefits when making decisions on the international stage. In the context of humanitarian intervention, realists view it as a diplomatic tool for pursuing engagement and national interests—they do not believe in abstract moral or humanitarian reasons as the basis for action and see humanitarian intervention as a political act. Realism tends to reject interventions that are not approved by sovereign states, as they are considered violations of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Sovereignty serves as the cornerstone of the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. Sovereignty often conflicts with the need to protect human rights—realists, in this case, prioritize the principle of sovereignty. Furthermore, realist rejection of humanitarian intervention seems to be driven by the perceived failures of previous humanitarian interventions. Humanitarian intervention in Somalia and Libya serve as notable examples. While the intervention in Somalia initially succeeded in saving civilians from famine caused by civil war, the subsequent “Black Hawk Down” incident in 1993, which resulted in the deaths of 18 US soldiers, led to the US—followed by the UN—withdrawing from Somalia, leaving the country in a prolonged civil war. The mission was deemed a failure due to its inability to address the complex political and social realities of Somalia. Similarly, in Libya, the NATO intervention initially succeeded in protecting civilians and aiding the rebels in overthrowing the Qaddafi regime. However, Libya subsequently descended into chaos due to the lack of a comprehensive transition strategy to restore stability.
B. Constructivism on Humanitarian Intervention
Constructivism, on the other hand, views the state’s actions as shaped by the common beliefs and values that it shares with other countries, rather than simply by its own advantages—it is more practical than theoretical. In the context of humanitarian intervention, constructivists perceive humanitarian intervention as an attempt by the international community to uphold global norms and protect human rights. Humanitarian intervention can be undertaken even if it violates state sovereignty.
Evans highlighted the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a concept developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which he co-chaired with Sahnoun. This concept emphasizes that states have a primary responsibility to protect their populations and that if a state is unable or unwilling to do so—the international community must act to protect them. State sovereignty should not be a pretext for the abandonment of human rights. In this context, the focus is no longer on the term “intervention” itself, but rather on protection. The concept of R2P encompasses not only military intervention but also the entire spectrum of preventive, reactive, and recovery responses. The use of force is only a last resort in extreme and exceptional circumstances, after clear criteria have been met (this will be discussed further in relation to the situation in Myanmar) and Security Council authorization has been obtained.
Humanitarian interventions reveal a significant tension between realism and constructivism. It is essential to understand both realist and constructivist perspectives because it significantly impacts the legal and political framework on humanitarian interventions. Learn from the past, the US intervention in Libya was largely framed by constructivism, where the R2P was invoked to justify military action against human rights violations. In contrast, realism helps explain the lack of intervention in Syria despite the severe humanitarian crisis, as it is considered contrary to US strategic interests. The dichotomy is particularly relevant towards the Myanmar situation—ultimately in recognizing how the perspectives apply to help clarify the motivations behind states’ action and the potential collective responses to humanitarian crises.
Humanitarian Intervention towards the Myanmar Situation
Following the 2021 coup, the situation in Myanmar has also forced more than 3.1 million people to flee their homes as of June 2024. Previously, in 2022, the Security Council had called for an end to all violence in Myanmar. The situation in Myanmar has become a potential case for humanitarian intervention due to the serious and widespread human rights abuses against civilians. However, to this date, there has been no concrete humanitarian intervention undertaken by the Security Council to restore the situation in Myanmar.
Contemporary global dynamics have prompted shifts in the approach to humanitarian intervention. In this regard, Wight and Cowper-Smith have conducted an in-depth comparison of two different approaches: coercive and non-coercive actions. Their research indicates that while non-coercive actions are more easily justified from an ethical standpoint, their effectiveness in protecting civilians remains limited. On the other hand, coercive actions have greater potential to provide immediate protection, but they present more complex ethical dilemmas and may result in broader suffering in the long term.
In response to the situation in Myanmar, global actors have undertaken various diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions. ASEAN, a regional intergovernmental organization that houses Myanmar as one of its member states— plays a crucial role to promote regional stability, particularly in addressing the ongoing crisis in Myanmar. Despite these pressing issues, ASEAN’s response has been characterized by a principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of member states—which limited their ability to take decisive action or implement effective humanitarian interventions in Myanmar. However, ASEAN has attempted to address the crisis through diplomatic endeavours, such as the Five-Point Consensus. Unfortunately, ASEAN’s diplomatic endeavours to resolve the Myanmar crisis have thus far yielded insignificant results. The Five-Point Consensus agreed upon in April 2021 has not been fully implemented due to weak ASEAN leadership and different interests among member states. On the other hand, economic sanctions imposed by the US and European Union member states on Myanmar have not yielded significant results. This is due to a lack of support from the Security Council and Myanmar’s dependence on neighbouring countries, such as China and Thailand, mitigating the impact of sanctions imposed by Western countries.
In response to the failures of diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions, it seems crucial to consider humanitarian intervention to prevent further deterioration and unimaginable suffering in Myanmar. Revisiting both realism and constructivism perspectives, it becomes challenging to determine whether such interventions are genuinely intended to uphold humanitarian norms or merely serve the interests of specific actors. The Security Council as the biggest mandate-holder to execute the humanitarian intervention should guarantee that the humanitarian intervention is grounded by humanitarian reasons. Moreover, learning from the failures of previous humanitarian interventions—due to a lack of political commitment, limited mandates, and an inability to understand the local context—it is important to ensure through planning and a deep understanding of the socio-political dynamics to carry out a humanitarian intervention in Myanmar.
Comments